Hello,
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 20:36:35 -0500
Elad Efrat e...@netbsd.org wrote:
Most of it is mechanically replacing the above action with something
more meaningful, together with the necessary secmodel bits. To make
reviewing easier, below there's a list of files. If you see a file you
want to
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:21:13AM +1100, matthew green wrote:
I am in agreement with Manuel. Without going into argument on BSD LFS
design issues, current code is way too far from being anywhere stable
and reliable. It should not block any progress in other subsystems.
irregardless of
Hi,
The current code confuses lock_state for something that it isn't. I
discussed this a while ago with hannken@ and blymn@ and came up with
the attached patch. We change the semantics to require locking and add
a KASSERT to make sure they're followed. Missing locking bits are
added in two places
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 20:36:35 -0500
Elad Efrat e...@netbsd.org wrote:
Attached is a diff that reduces the use of KAUTH_GENERIC_ISSUSER. I
plan to commit it a week or so after the branch.
Thanks for working on this.
While I understand most changes, after looking at the diff I wondered:
anyone
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 04:24:27PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:03:02AM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
It's not breaking it on the branch, it introducing a backward compat
problem with the lfs modules, for those who are using the lfs
module (it's statically built into
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 02:27:30PM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 04:24:27PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:03:02AM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
It's not breaking it on the branch, it introducing a backward compat
problem with the lfs
On 11/03/2011 02:02 AM, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
Hello Lars,
Sorry for late reply.
Lars Heidieker l...@heidieker.de wrote:
i uploaded a new version of the kmem-pool-vmem-uvm patch:
ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/misc/para/kmem-pool-vmem-uvm.patch
...
I've uploaded a new
hi,
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:48:37PM +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
hi,
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:00:05PM +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
have you considered to separate the entity being cached from vnode?
What would this buy us ? the data are intimely tied to the inode, cleaning
On Jun 10, 9:36am, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Edgar_Fu=DF?= wrote:
}
} Areca is one decent choice.
} Thanks. But which Areca controllers are supported by NetBSD?
} I can find lots of their PCI IDs in dev/pci/arcmsr.c, bu I fail to map
} product names (e.g. ARC-1320-8i) to PCI IDs.
I'm using:
arcmsr0
