Sorry for the repetition, it seems that single-touch state
needs the same treatment as MT state when wsmouse is being
reopened. Single-touch state "synchronizes" itself immediately
when the first changes occur, but it may happen that the first
touch after a restart with dirty state won't trigger
Hei,
i finally commited this.
Thank you.
Denis Fondras(open...@ledeuns.net) on 2016.06.05 11:02:31 +0200:
> On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 10:28:05AM +0200, Sebastian Benoit wrote:
> > hei,
> >
> > thanks! i forgot that we print the config.
> >
> > ok benno@, with whitespace fixed.
> >
>
>
>
Index: sys/dev/ic/smc91cxx.c
===
RCS file: /home/OpenBSD/cvs/src/sys/dev/ic/smc91cxx.c,v
retrieving revision 1.47
diff -u -p -r1.47 smc91cxx.c
--- sys/dev/ic/smc91cxx.c 13 Apr 2016 10:49:26 - 1.47
+++
i like2be able2cpypaste
-Artturi
diff --git a/share/man/man9/ratecheck.9 b/share/man/man9/ratecheck.9
index 4e36e33..1e22053 100644
--- a/share/man/man9/ratecheck.9
+++ b/share/man/man9/ratecheck.9
@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ drv_errhandler(int err1, int err2)
...
On 12 July 2016 at 10:45, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> dlg@ could reproduce a panic by running dhclient in a loop on one of his
> machines.
>
> Turns out that there's a race between arplookup() and arpcache() inside
> in_arpinput(). If another CPU removes the ARP entry from the
The diff below removes the last board ID dependent code for the i.MX6
platform. It affects all boards that use a Micrel PHY, which would
show up as "ukphy0" in your dmesg. If you have such a board (udoo,
novena and sabrelight, there may be others), I'd apprciate if you
could test this diff and
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:46:43AM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > Would you then remove the ::/96 reject route from the routing table?
>
> I think this should be a second discussion. We also have a route for
> IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses & have a similar check enabled in ip6_input():
>
>
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:46:43AM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 12/07/16(Tue) 11:33, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:28:47AM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > > By default we have a route to reject compatible addresses:
> > >
> > > ::/96 ::1