Re: vio(4) tap(4) question

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 09:35:52PM -0400, Bryan Harris wrote: > Somehow this thread gave me the idea to try: > > pass on { vether* tap* } > > Which did not work. But it lead to the idea to use the group names: > > pass on { vether tap } > > Which does work. It's funny because I like using

Re: vio(4) tap(4) question

Hi Trond, We must have been typing at the same time, yes that ended up working. I tried a * character first but that didn't work (and wasn't in the man page anyway). V/r, Bryan On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 9:32 PM, trondd wrote: > On Mon, August 28, 2017 6:03 pm, Bryan

Re: vio(4) tap(4) question

Somehow this thread gave me the idea to try: pass on { vether* tap* } Which did not work. But it lead to the idea to use the group names: pass on { vether tap } Which does work. It's funny because I like using group names (like egress) and I noticed earlier today that all taps are in a group

Re: vio(4) tap(4) question

On Mon, August 28, 2017 6:03 pm, Bryan Harris wrote: > > pass on { vether0 tap0 tap1 tap2 tap3 tap4 tap5 tap6 tap7 tap8 tap9 } > > Thanks all. > > V/r, > Bryan > Can't you just use the interface group 'tap'? pass on { vether0 tap }

Re: vio(4) tap(4) question

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 06:48:20PM -0400, Bryan Harris wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Mike Larkin wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 06:03:16PM -0400, Bryan Harris wrote: > > >> If the vio is connected to the virtual switch, and the switch is > > > > But the

Re: vio(4) tap(4) question

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Mike Larkin wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 06:03:16PM -0400, Bryan Harris wrote: >> If the vio is connected to the virtual switch, and the switch is > > But the vio(4) interface isn't visible to the host. So what you said there > doesn't

Re: vio(4) tap(4) question

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 06:03:16PM -0400, Bryan Harris wrote: > Hi folks, > > I am in the learning process about vmd. When I read the vmctl(8) man > page I have incorrectly got the idea that I can have a VM that has a > vio interface but without a mapping to a host tap interface, simply by >

vio(4) tap(4) question

Hi folks, I am in the learning process about vmd. When I read the vmctl(8) man page I have incorrectly got the idea that I can have a VM that has a vio interface but without a mapping to a host tap interface, simply by omitting the -i option from the "vmctl start vmX" command. However, if I

Re: ksh ^R vs EDITOR=vi

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 09:52:56PM +0200, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote: | On Mon, Aug 28 2017, Stuart Henderson wrote: | > On 2017-08-28, mar...@martinbrandenburg.com wrote: | >> What works is to set EDITOR in your profile, then set -o

Lenovo notebook: random lokups with 6.2 beta

Hi, Trying to use OpenBSD with 6.2 beta with a Lenovo Ideapad 14'' IBR-14'' Intel Celeron CPU N3060 @ 1.60GHz, 32GB SSD, 4GB RAM, based in the Broadwell chipset ; however I am having random lockups when using Firefox under xorg i3 or Lumina. uname -a OpenBSD 6.2-beta (GENERIC.MP) 50... Aug

Re: ksh ^R vs EDITOR=vi

On Mon, Aug 28 2017, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2017-08-28, mar...@martinbrandenburg.com > wrote: >> What works is to set EDITOR in your profile, then set -o emacs. The other >> order will result in the shell changing to vi mode. > > That's

Re: ksh ^R vs EDITOR=vi

On 2017-08-28, mar...@martinbrandenburg.com wrote: > What works is to set EDITOR in your profile, then set -o emacs. The other > order will result in the shell changing to vi mode. That's fine until you su :) > Or we could all set EDITOR to ed, the STANDARD text

Re: ksh ^R vs EDITOR=vi

> From andreas.kah...@nbis.se Mon Aug 28 09:27:40 2017 > Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:53:45 +0200 > From: Andreas Kusalananda =?iso-8859-1?B?S+Ro5HJp?= > To: Jan Stary > Subject: Re: ksh ^R vs EDITOR=vi > > ^R is for searching backwards in the command line

Re: ksh ^R vs EDITOR=vi

On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 05:02:36PM +0200, Jan Stary wrote: > This is current/amd64. I am using ksh(1) as a shell. > Using ^R opens a search in the command history. > However, with 'export EDITOR=vi', pressing ^R > just literarily types '^R' and does not open > the history search. Is that expected?

Re: Clarification on ksh(1) nohup mechanism

On August 27, 2017 6:28:12 PM GMT+02:00, Alessandro DE LAURENZIS wrote: >Folks, > >On Sat 12/08/2017 18:36, Alessandro DE LAURENZIS wrote: >>Dear misc@ readers, >> >>I'm lost with the subject... From the man page I see that, differently > >>from standard ksh, OpenBSD

Re: [PATCH] Off-by-one bug in httpd, ldapd, relayd, smtpd, switchd and ypldap

On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 07:18:55PM -0500, Kris Katterjohn wrote: > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 09:04:33AM +0200, Gilles Chehade wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 04:20:31PM -0500, Kris Katterjohn wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 09:24:33AM -0700, Chris Cappuccio wrote: > > > > This looks correct.