Le 06/12/2019 à 08:49, m...@netbsd.org a écrit :
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 07:27:07AM +, Maxime Villard wrote:
>> Log Message:
>> Minor changes, reported by the LGTM bot.
>
> Would be nice if the commit message was "address some integer overflows"
> or something.
Except that it does not addres
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 10:05:05PM +, Sevan Janiyan wrote:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: sevan
> Date: Thu Dec 5 22:05:05 UTC 2019
>
> Modified Files:
> src/sys/arch/amd64/conf: GENERIC
> src/sys/arch/i386/conf: GENERIC
>
> Log Message:
> Enable pciverbose option to
"Taylor R Campbell" writes:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: riastradh
> Date: Fri Dec 6 14:43:30 UTC 2019
>
> Modified Files:
> src/etc: security
> src/etc/defaults: security.conf
> src/share/man/man5: security.conf.5
>
> Log Message:
> Save the entropy seed daily i
Martin Husemann writes:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 10:05:05PM +, Sevan Janiyan wrote:
> > Module Name:src
> > Committed By: sevan
> > Date: Thu Dec 5 22:05:05 UTC 2019
> >
> > Modified Files:
> > src/sys/arch/amd64/conf: GENERIC
> > src/sys/arch/i386/conf: G
On Sat, Dec 07, 2019 at 06:30:55AM +1100, matthew green wrote:
> > Why? I consider this totaly useless bloat, what was wrong with the boot.cfg
> > solution?
>
> policy: no default modules in the installation unless licenses
> issues force such, until module+kernel solution.
OK, but this is gone
On Fri, 6 Dec 2019, Martin Husemann wrote:
On Sat, Dec 07, 2019 at 06:30:55AM +1100, matthew green wrote:
Why? I consider this totaly useless bloat, what was wrong with the boot.cfg
solution?
policy: no default modules in the installation unless licenses
issues force such, until module+kerne
> > > Why? I consider this totaly useless bloat, what was wrong with the
> > > boot.cfg
> > > solution?
> >
> > policy: no default modules in the installation unless licenses
> > issues force such, until module+kernel solution.
>
> OK, but this is gone awry. The boot.cfg solution is great if an
On Sat, Dec 07, 2019 at 07:12:10AM +1100, matthew green wrote:
> > > > Why? I consider this totaly useless bloat, what was wrong with the
> > > > boot.cfg
> > > > solution?
> > >
> > > policy: no default modules in the installation unless licenses
> > > issues force such, until module+kernel sol
This is experimental: we use l_cpu to mean a number of things and this
involves changing it to a different value than curcpu() in a running LWP,
which we have not done before. I'll see about making it more robust.
Andrew
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 09:36:11PM +, Andrew Doran wrote:
> Module Nam