On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:18:31AM +0200, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote:
On 27.09.2011 12:23, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 10:35:41PM +0200, Francois Tigeot wrote:
Since DragonFly's proplib implementation comes from NetBSD, I figured it
would be best to ask here what to do:
fix the
Hi Mark, hi folks,
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 11:42:11AM +0200, Marc Balmer wrote:
attached to an individual pin. gpioctl(8) will keep the pulse keyword,
as this is needed for hardware pulsating devices. The interface to the
gpiopwm(4) driver could be realized using three sysctl variables:
Am 28.09.11 16:08, schrieb Reinoud Zandijk:
Hi Mark, hi folks,
Marc
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 11:42:11AM +0200, Marc Balmer wrote:
attached to an individual pin. gpioctl(8) will keep the pulse keyword,
as this is needed for hardware pulsating devices. The interface to the
gpiopwm(4)
On 09/13/2011 08:08 PM, Grégoire Sutre wrote:
* grub2 also has a knetbsd option to boot a NetBSD kernel, which loads
the kernel fine, but might pass wrong argument, as the
kernel does not find the rootfs and /sbin/init.
Right, I remember facing the same issue. The option -r of the knetbsd
On 09/27/2011 01:06 AM, Emmanuel Kasper wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, Multi booting NetBSD using GRUB2
'multiboot' breaks ksyms, I did not document it
I believe that this was fixed in 1.99. Which GRUB version did you
use? I tried with GRUB trunk, and ksyms seem fine (for 5.1 and
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 08:24:48AM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote:
It would appear that wapbl is only relevant for ffs file systems
(and in particular, only for ffs filesystems with a V2 superblock
format).
Yet the current modularization of wapbl is not dependant on the
ffs module.
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 09:17:43PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 05:51:13PM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
Why advertise uint16_t, are we trying to save memory? I would just do
them uint32_t...
While few things are certain in computing, I don't think we are going
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 09:17:43PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 05:51:13PM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
Why advertise uint16_t, are we trying to save memory? I would just do
them uint32_t...
While few things are certain in computing, I don't think we
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 11:42:07AM +1000, matthew green wrote:
Why advertise uint16_t, are we trying to save memory? I would just do
them uint32_t...
While few things are certain in computing, I don't think we are going to
see a 65535 MHz processor any time soon. But sure,
If that periodically-threatened pdp10 port (or some other off-size
port) ever appears, it's not likely to care about the size that
appears in some other environment (unlike for on-disk structures) and
using an explicit size will if anything make life more complicated.
Especially if it's a
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:16:29PM -0400, Mouse wrote:
If that periodically-threatened pdp10 port (or some other off-size
port) ever appears, it's not likely to care about the size that
appears in some other environment (unlike for on-disk structures) and
using an explicit size will if
I'm sure at this point someone could put together a 36-bit machine
out of FPGAs that ran fast enough to be used as a low-volume web
server, and there are certainly heterogeneity advantages to such a
platform. Maybe someone who knows enough about such things should
actually do this :-)
If I
12 matches
Mail list logo
