On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Henning Brauer
wrote:
>
>
> diffs are for current of course but should work for 5.1 as well -
> dunno what you are trying.
>
Ok thanks :-)
I am running 5.0
--Siju
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Henning Brauer
wrote:
> * patrick keshishian [2012-04-11 14:55]:
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:20:30PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
>> don't you need two different index vars for this next
>> section?
>
> no, why?
I put the caveat that I am not familiar with the
* patrick keshishian [2012-04-11 14:55]:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:20:30PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> don't you need two different index vars for this next
> section?
no, why?
> > + for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
> > + if (i < npflogifs)
> > + p[i] = pflogifs[i];
>
* Siju George [2012-04-11 14:25]:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Henning Brauer wrote:
> >
> > please try this & report back
> >
>
> Thanks Henning but I need some help :-(
>
> I got the following errors and I have attached the .rej files
diffs are for current of course but should work for
Currently if you resize an xterm that top(1) is running in to too few lines
for any processes to be shown and then type 'n' to show X process lines, top
will display a message saying:
This terminal can only display -Y processes.
Obviously a negative number is not quite correct. This diff makes
This moves the accounting flag to struct process where it belongs.
The main rationale is that accounting flags are being collected on
the program exit. Ok?
Index: kern/kern_acct.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/kern/kern_acct.c,v
retriev
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> guenther@ has pointed out that sometimes suser is passed an incorrect
> flags argument. Currently, there's only one flag that's defined:
> SUSER_NOACCT (0x1). Unfortunately it aligns too well with AFORK flag
> used with p_acflag. This diff cleans up
> From piro...@cvs.openbsd.org Wed Apr 11 08:36:38 2012
> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 08:36:38 -0600 (MDT)
> From: Paul Irofti
> To: guent...@gmail.com, piro...@cvs.openbsd.org
> Subject: Re: ps axH per-thread usage times
> Cc: tech@openbsd.org
>
> Updated the diff and included the ps(1) and top(1) bit
guenther@ has pointed out that sometimes suser is passed an incorrect
flags argument. Currently, there's only one flag that's defined:
SUSER_NOACCT (0x1). Unfortunately it aligns too well with AFORK flag
used with p_acflag. This diff cleans up the tree. OK?
Index: dev/pci/if_san_obsd.c
==
Updated the diff and included the ps(1) and top(1) bits.
Index: sys/kern/kern_sysctl.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/kern/kern_sysctl.c,v
retrieving revision 1.219
diff -u -p -r1.219 kern_sysctl.c
--- sys/kern/kern_sysctl.c 10 Apr
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Paul Irofti wrote:
> This displayes usage times per thread.
>
> For the main thread it displays the total time (as it did in the past)
> and puts marks the TID as -1.
Chatting about this we've agreed that with the -H flag, ps (and top)
should only show the lines f
This displayes usage times per thread.
For the main thread it displays the total time (as it did in the past)
and puts marks the TID as -1.
Okay? Should I expand the manpage bits for ps(1)? Currently it says:
.It Fl H
Also display information about kernel visible threads.
EXAMPLE
--
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:20:30PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Henning Brauer [2012-04-11 11:26]:
> > * Siju George [2012-04-10 08:16]:
> > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Andres Perera wrote:
> > > > altering the max might have consequences i don't know about:
> > > I will stick with 1
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Henning Brauer wrote:
>
> please try this & report back
>
Thanks Henning but I need some help :-(
I got the following errors and I have attached the .rej files
=
# patch -p0 < patch.if_pflog
Hmm... Looks like a unified di
Un moyen efficace : cibler juste !
Avec ` nos envois 100% ciblis,
vous atteignez directement votre coeur de cible !
Utilisez nos packs : "TOUT BUDGET"
Consultez nos offres
visualisez nos offres
Quel type de ciblage utiliser ?
Tous ces crithres sont disponibles avec nos packs :
- Secteur d'ac
* Henning Brauer [2012-04-11 11:26]:
> * Siju George [2012-04-10 08:16]:
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Andres Perera wrote:
> > > altering the max might have consequences i don't know about:
> > I will stick with 15 :-)
>
> actually, bumping it should be absolutely safe.
>
> pretty dum
16 matches
Mail list logo
