Re: Grammar and style edits to installation guide

"Theo de Raadt" wrote: > Evan Silberman wrote: > > > - You may now be given the opportunity to configure the time zone > > - your system will be using (this depends on the installation > > - media you are using). > > - > > - If the installation program skips this question, do not be > >

Re: unveil and immuatble directory

OK as is. ok deraadt Alexander Bluhm wrote: > Hi, > > When setting immutable flags on directories with chflags(1), unveil(2) > behaves poorly. > > # rm /etc/hosts > # chflags uchg /etc > # ifconfig vio0 > ifconfig: unveil: Operation not permitted > > Adding another exception for EPERM fixes

Re: ix(4): enable checksum offload

On 9.9.2013. 22:07, Mike Belopuhov wrote: > On 9 September 2013 21:48, Brad Smith wrote: > > Here is a diff to enable the checksum offload support for ix(4). > > > > Looking for any testing. > > > > last time i checked this broke ospf traffic. please make sure at least > ip/tcp, ip/udp,

Re: ldom.conf.5: mention eeprom(8)

On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 10:43:23AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > Mark Kettenis wrote: > > I realuze that eeprom(8) calls these fields, but they're usually just > > called variables. > > makes sense. Sure, let's call them variables here. > > Also, it is strange to have the ldom.conf in the

Re: Grammar and style edits to installation guide

Evan Silberman wrote: > - You may now be given the opportunity to configure the time zone > - your system will be using (this depends on the installation > - media you are using). > - > - If the installation program skips this question, do not be > - alarmed, the time zone

Re: ldom.conf.5: mention eeprom(8)

Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 16:59:37 +0200 > > From: Klemens Nanni > > > > Point users to the manual describing "auto-boot?" and the like. > > > > Feedback? OK? > > I realuze that eeprom(8) calls these fields, but they're usually just > called variables. makes sense. >

Re: Grammar and style edits to installation guide

Jason McIntyre wrote: > ok. so if i didn't comment on a change, i didn;t see any issue. > if it's a rewording of an already ok text, i don;t see the point. > i don;t see the point of Un*x->Unix, but some of our more, er, > experienced, developers may want to chip in. Hi Jason & tech@, Below is

Re: ldomctl.8: split config into new ldom.conf.5

On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 03:30:53AM +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote: > Index: usr.sbin/ldomd/Makefile > === > RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/ldomd/Makefile,v > retrieving revision 1.3 > diff -u -p -r1.3 Makefile > --- usr.sbin/ldomd/Makefile

Re: ldom.conf.5: mention eeprom(8)

> Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 16:59:37 +0200 > From: Klemens Nanni > > Point users to the manual describing "auto-boot?" and the like. > > Feedback? OK? I realuze that eeprom(8) calls these fields, but they're usually just called variables. Also, it is strange to have the ldom.conf in the

ldom.conf.5: mention eeprom(8)

Point users to the manual describing "auto-boot?" and the like. Feedback? OK? Index: ldom.conf.5 === RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/ldomd/ldom.conf.5,v retrieving revision 1.1 diff -u -p -r1.1 ldom.conf.5 --- ldom.conf.5 27 Jul 2019

Re: unveil prototypes

On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 12:41:24AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 00:09:11 +0200 > > From: Alexander Bluhm > > > > Hi, > > > > Can we move the unveil function prototypes into the namei.h header > > file? This guarantees consistency. Protected by _KERNEL, survived > >

Re: taking kernel config into consideration when reorder

> A subsequent reboot will fail to relink because the SHA256 file has not > been updated, also rewriting the kernel at this point nullifies the sync > that was recently added for a reason. > > (Also as you'd probably expect, a similar suggestion has been made > before and already rejected.) Out