On Wed, Jul 27, 2011, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
+#define SETNAME(name) do { names = (name); limit = nitems(name); } while (0)
userland is not supposed to use nitems I think? But it keeps sneaking
in because the kernel headers don't protect it.
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:58:22AM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
+#define SETNAME(name) do { names = (name); limit = nitems(name); } while
(0)
userland is not supposed to use nitems I think? But it keeps sneaking
in because the kernel headers
Can PowerPC do unaligned accesses or not?
We support two kinds of architectures:
unaligned
strict alignment
In reality, we could write kernel emulators and make every
architecture be unaligned. In the worst cases of access, it would be
extremely expensive. Making a powerpc act truly
On 27 July 2011 12:45, Christian Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de wrote:
Can PowerPC do unaligned accesses or not?
I'm far from an expert but I know at least some power pc can do
unalign access, like those MPC8xxx, so the socppc port can do
unaligned accesses.
I'm bringing this up *again*,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:58:22AM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
+#define SETNAME(name) do { names = (name); limit = nitems(name); } while
(0)
userland is not supposed to use nitems I think? But it keeps sneaking
in because the kernel headers
On 2011 Jul 27 (Wed) at 19:22:34 +0200 (+0200), Jasper Lievisse Adriaanse wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:58:22AM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
+#define SETNAME(name) do { names = (name); limit = nitems(name); } while
(0)
userland is not
A small pile of Fujitsu Siemens Scenic machines landed in my lap, all of
them apparently with onboard Broadcom gigabit ethernet that are
recognized as
bge0 at pci1 dev 0 function 0 Broadcom BCM5751 rev 0x01, BCM5750 A1 (0x4001):
apic 2 int 16, address 00:30:05:84:9a:5d
brgphy0 at bge0 phy 1:
ok?
Index: distrib/miniroot/install.sub
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/distrib/miniroot/install.sub,v
retrieving revision 1.647
diff -u -p -r1.647 install.sub
--- distrib/miniroot/install.sub14 Jul 2011 14:54:57 - 1.647
+++
Didn't know about this...
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_plural_of_firmware
ok for me
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org
wrote:
ok?
Index: distrib/miniroot/install.sub
===
RCS file:
Hi,
now here also for rpc.statd and rpc.lockd. But I could only test
mountd, because I have no clients for lockd. I would really like to see
this committed in cvs.
Cheers,
Christopher
Index: sbin/mountd/mountd.8
===
RCS file:
now here also for rpc.statd and rpc.lockd. But I could only test
mountd, because I have no clients for lockd. I would really like to see
this committed in cvs.
Sorry, but I strongly disagree with what you are doing here.
I suspect you want to select the ports by hand so that you can do port
Do you have a particular usage that needs this?
Some minor nits on this diff
- I would use UINT16_MAX or SHORT_MAX instead of (116)-1.
- Spaces around = in port=0 please.
- Rest of main() uses exit(1) not return (1) and err/errx not fprintf
(aside from for usage) should stay consistent.
-
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda
acam...@verlet.org wrote:
Any ideas?
# cd /usr/src make SUDO=sudo build
...
cc -O2 -pipe -Wall -I/usr/src/usr.sbin/ospf6d -Wstrict-prototypes
-Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -Wshadow -Wpointer-arith
-Wcast-qual
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:49:01PM +0200, David Coppa wrote:
Didn't know about this...
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_plural_of_firmware
ok for me
Me too.
Ken
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org
wrote:
ok?
Index:
On 07/27/11 23:42, Nicholas Marriott wrote:
Do you have a particular usage that needs this?
No, I just run a local nfs server; at the moment only serving one
single, trusted client.
So I'm not in desperate need for fixed ports, but I think fixed ports
are a lot cleaner and over all easier to
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 05:45:56PM +0200, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
Can PowerPC do unaligned accesses or not?
I'm bringing this up *again*, because the fragmentary dialog on ICB
about how powerpc is supposed to behave doesn't agree with observable
reality.
| miod some models can afford
Do you have a particular usage that needs this?
No, I just run a local nfs server; at the moment only serving one
single, trusted client.
So I'm not in desperate need for fixed ports, but I think fixed ports
are a lot cleaner and over all easier to maintain.
RPC does not work that way.
On 07/28/11 01:33, Theo de Raadt wrote:
On 07/27/11 23:42, Nicholas Marriott wrote:
RPC does not work that way. It uses the portmapper at port 111 for
discovery. NFS at 2049 is also a known port. The rest are supposed
to be unknown.
Unfortunately it isn't supposed to work that way.
* Christopher Zimmermann madro...@zakweb.de [2011-07-28 02:05]:
ntpd does have a fixed port number (2049)
err, no :)
--
Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services
Dedicated Servers, Rootservers,
NUEVO COMPILADO DE TESTS 2011
COMPLETAMENTE ACTUALIZADO-CON RESULTADOS E INTERPRETACIONES
Test psicologicos,infantiles ,para orientacion vocacional,psicotecnicos,
para entrevistas laborales, seleccion de personal, escalas , protocolos
,cuestionarios , aptitud, inteligencia, etc
CONTENIDO
TESTS
20 matches
Mail list logo
