Martijn van Duren wrote:
> I don't see much point in the check.
>
> If we don't have write permissions open(2) will fail.
> If we open it based on S_IWOTH permissions than checking for S_IWGRP
> without considering who is in that group seems really absurd to me.
>
> So I'd be OK with patch 1
I don't see much point in the check.
If we don't have write permissions open(2) will fail.
If we open it based on S_IWOTH permissions than checking for S_IWGRP
without considering who is in that group seems really absurd to me.
So I'd be OK with patch 1
martijn@
On 5/16/19 12:46 AM, Theo de
> Why did you decide to change the data structure of the runqueue? What
> problem are you trying to solve?
Thanks for your feedback. It forced me to do some introspection.
I was trying to explore if we can tweak and make the current code faster, while
still tryign to keep it as simple as it is
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 06:17:04PM -0400, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> People started complaining that the SCHED_LOCK() is contended. Here's a
> first round at reducing its scope.
>
> Diff below introduces a per-process mutex to protect time accounting
> fields accessed in tuagg(). tuagg() is
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 12:13:52AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> This changes uvm_unmap_detach() to get rid of the "easy" entries first
> before grabbing the kernel lock. Probably doesn't help much with the
> lock contention, but it avoids a locking problem that happens with
> pools that use
That looks good.
Do others using sensorsd concur?
Anton Borowka wrote:
> sensorsd(8) currently only unveils /etc/sensorsd.conf for reading, but
> the config file can be changed with the -f option (which is currently
> not working).
>
> The patch moves unveil and pledge after the options
sensorsd(8) currently only unveils /etc/sensorsd.conf for reading, but
the config file can be changed with the -f option (which is currently
not working).
The patch moves unveil and pledge after the options handling and unveils
the determined configfile.
Index: usr.sbin/sensorsd/sensorsd.c
"Theo de Raadt" writes:
> Anton Borowka wrote:
>
>> wall(1) does not work correctly for non-root users at the moment because
>> ttymsg() needs read access for the tty devices, but only write access is
>> unveiled. Because it cannot access any devices nothing is printed.
>>
>> This patch adds
Anton Borowka wrote:
> wall(1) does not work correctly for non-root users at the moment because
> ttymsg() needs read access for the tty devices, but only write access is
> unveiled. Because it cannot access any devices nothing is printed.
>
> This patch adds read access for /dev. Don't know if
wall(1) does not work correctly for non-root users at the moment because
ttymsg() needs read access for the tty devices, but only write access is
unveiled. Because it cannot access any devices nothing is printed.
This patch adds read access for /dev. Don't know if it makes sense to
only unveil
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 11:10:37PM +0200, Remi Locherer wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:10:31AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > On 2019/04/29 11:58, Sebastian Benoit wrote:
> > > David Gwynne(da...@gwynne.id.au) on 2019.04.29 19:36:51 +1000:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On 29 Apr 2019, at
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 09:08:20PM +0200, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> completely agree with you. my diff indeed ignores '-a'. Thanks for
> spotting that. With change below the complete patch behaves as you
> expect. Finishing touch below adds makes pfctl_recurse() to
> accept an
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 03:52:57PM +0200, Denis Fondras wrote:
> When router-id is unspecified, ospfd will choose the lowest IP address of the
> host. I added an area and an IP lower than the existing ones and on reload
> ospfd asked me to restart and did not activate the new area.
>
> Why would
Hello Klemens,
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 12:22:34AM +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 01:28:57AM +0200, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> > The idea has been already discussed few weeks ago [1]. Reusing "-a '*'"
> > option
> > to tell pfctl to flush everything is sthen's idea [2].
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 02:33:45PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > We're computing modulo 26 here. Negative numbers have a positive
> > equivalent. So you diff adds code for no benefit.
>
> I think the amount of code added is an acceptable cost for improved user
>
Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> We're computing modulo 26 here. Negative numbers have a positive
> equivalent. So you diff adds code for no benefit.
I think the amount of code added is an acceptable cost for improved user
experience. We could use this argument to remove subtraction from bc, but that
would
Hi,
tleguern wrote on Wed, May 15, 2019 at 03:36:57PM +0100:
> This little patch makes caesar(6) useful at both encrypting and
> decrypting texts by allowing a negative rotation.
Committed, thanks.
> A similar patch was proposed by Dieter Rauschenberger in 2008 with
> little response
Well,
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 03:36:57PM +0100, tleguern wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This little patch makes caesar(6) useful at both encrypting and
> decrypting texts by allowing a negative rotation.
>
> Example:
>
> $ echo Ceci est un test | caesar 10
> Moms ocd ex docd
> $ echo Ceci est un test | caesar 10
Hi,
This little patch makes caesar(6) useful at both encrypting and
decrypting texts by allowing a negative rotation.
Example:
$ echo Ceci est un test | caesar 10
Moms ocd ex docd
$ echo Ceci est un test | caesar 10 | caesar -10
Ceci est un test
A similar patch was proposed by Dieter
Hello Amit,
On 15/05/19(Wed) 09:05, Amit Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This effort is heavily based on top of Gregor's and Michal's diffs. Tried to
> incorporate feedback given by different people to them in 2011/2016. Split
> the new code in a ifdef, so people can do a straight comparison, tried
Hi,
This effort is heavily based on top of Gregor's and Michal's diffs. Tried to
incorporate feedback given by different people to them in 2011/2016. Split the
new code in a ifdef, so people can do a straight comparison, tried very hard
not to delete existing code, just shifted it around. Main
When router-id is unspecified, ospfd will choose the lowest IP address of the
host. I added an area and an IP lower than the existing ones and on reload
ospfd asked me to restart and did not activate the new area.
Why would it update the router-id in such a case ?
This diff changes this
Any progress in OpenBSD 6.5 to have umsm(4) and umb(4) recognition for
the same composite USB device according to USB descriptors dumped for
MC7304 and MC7455?
6.4 doesn't recognize mbim device umb(4) when umsm(4) ports enabled on
one physical device simultaneously.
I'm getting messages like
Hi Alexander,
Alexander Bluhm wrote on Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:01:00AM -0400:
> Regress prints FAILED in the middle of the make output, this is
> hard to watch.
I agree this is a nuisance. I have often wondered whether the
result was "PASS" or "FAIL" after doing longer regression runs
in the
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:01:00AM -0400, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> Regress prints FAILED in the middle of the make output, this is
> hard to watch. tb@ asked me to print a PASSED at the end. As the
> make processes cannot hold state over several targets or directories,
> I create a regress log.
25 matches
Mail list logo
