Daniel: It appears the patch which was comitted didn't include
everything it should. I blame myself because the patch below
contains both debugging code and is reversed. I will submit a PR
with a patch. In brief, what is missing is:
+ if (n == 0) {
+
On 14 Nov 2003 at 10:08, Dan Langille wrote:
Daniel: It appears the patch which was comitted didn't include
everything it should. I blame myself because the patch below
contains both debugging code and is reversed. I will submit a PR
with a patch. In brief, what is missing is:
+
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
Daniel: It appears the patch which was comitted didn't include
everything it should. I blame myself because the patch below
contains both debugging code and is reversed. I will submit a PR
with a patch. In brief, what is missing is:
+
Is your mailer screwed up? We're getting duplicates (a few
days later).
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
On 18 Sep 2003 at 7:50, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
On 16 Sep 2003 at 20:49, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Dan
On 6 Oct 2003 at 19:10, Daniel Eischen wrote:
Is your mailer screwed up? We're getting duplicates (a few
days later).
I don't think so. Could they have been moderated? What do the headers say?
--
Dan Langille : http://www.langille.org/
___
[EMAIL
On Monday, 6 October 2003 at 21:46:24 -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
On 6 Oct 2003 at 19:10, Daniel Eischen wrote:
Is your mailer screwed up? We're getting duplicates (a few
days later).
I don't think so. Could they have been moderated? What do the
headers say?
Somebody in France has set up
On Saturday 04 October 2003 07:21 am, Dan Langille wrote:
On 4 Oct 2003 at 10:17, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
All our testing on this patch has been successful. I'm going to
do a few more tests on different hardware under 4.8-stable.
What's the
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
All our testing on this patch has been successful. I'm going to do a
few more tests on different hardware under 4.8-stable.
What's the next step? Commit it? Get others to test with it first?
It's already in -current. You'll have to wait for
On 4 Oct 2003 at 10:17, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
All our testing on this patch has been successful. I'm going to do a
few more tests on different hardware under 4.8-stable.
What's the next step? Commit it? Get others to test with it first?
On 18 Sep 2003 at 7:50, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
On 16 Sep 2003 at 20:49, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
I've had preliminary success with this patch. More testing needs
to be done, but in the meantime,
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
On 18 Sep 2003 at 7:50, Daniel Eischen wrote:
Right, this seems correct to me.
All our testing on this patch has been successful. I'm going to do a
few more tests on different hardware under 4.8-stable.
What's the next step? Commit it?
On 29 Sep 2003 at 9:02, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
On 18 Sep 2003 at 7:50, Daniel Eischen wrote:
Right, this seems correct to me.
All our testing on this patch has been successful. I'm going to do a
few more tests on different hardware
Daniel Eischen wrote:
If you are using libkse or
libthr, you will get a partial byte count and not zero because
the tape driver returns the (partial) bytes written. So exiting
the loop in libc_r and returning 0 would only seem to correct
the problem for libc_r.
If there is a
On 19 Sep 2003 at 2:24, Terry Lambert wrote:
Daniel Eischen wrote:
If you are using libkse or
libthr, you will get a partial byte count and not zero because
the tape driver returns the (partial) bytes written. So exiting
the loop in libc_r and returning 0 would only seem to
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
On 16 Sep 2003 at 20:49, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
I've had preliminary success with this patch. More testing needs
to be done, but in the meantime, I would appreciate reviews and
comments. The
On 16 Sep 2003 at 20:49, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
I've had preliminary success with this patch. More testing needs
to be done, but in the meantime, I would appreciate reviews and
comments. The patched code is available from
I've had preliminary success with this patch. More testing needs
to be done, but in the meantime, I would appreciate reviews and
comments. The patched code is available from
http://beta.freebsddiary.org/tmp/uthread_write.c and the patch
appears below.
In short, the logic has been changed to
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
I've had preliminary success with this patch. More testing needs
to be done, but in the meantime, I would appreciate reviews and
comments. The patched code is available from
http://beta.freebsddiary.org/tmp/uthread_write.c and the patch
appears
18 matches
Mail list logo
