On 2017-07-03 07:25, Michael van Elst wrote:
b...@softjar.se (Johnny Billquist) writes:
Having the normal wall clock driven by a tick interrupt has its points.
We usually avoid this and use what hardware timer the platform offers.
Which is the HZ interrupt, unless I'm confused
On 2017-07-03 01:10, Michael van Elst wrote:
b...@softjar.se (Johnny Billquist) writes:
A tickless kernel wouldn't run callouts from the regular clock interrupt
but would use a hires timer to issue interrupts at arbitrary times.
The callout API could then be changed to either accept timespec
On 2017-07-02 23:24, Michael van Elst wrote:
b...@softjar.se (Johnny Billquist) writes:
I don't get it. What was the problem with using nanosleep for short
usleep's?
usleep is just a wrapper around nanosleep. There is no difference
except that nanosleep accepts higher precision delays.
So
nection here. We
should be able to deal with very high resolution clocks, even if we have
a normal clock ticking at 100Hz.
But it might be easiest if we were to move to a tickless implementation
in general, in order to deal with arbitrary clock times.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist
n on this topic,
and might be totally bonkers and clueless. In which case, feel free to
educate me.)
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: b...@softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
ious calls.
As the text says...
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: b...@softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
.
And I don't know which was first, or if any was even inspired by the other.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: b...@softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is
On 2016-09-23 15:38, Greg Troxel wrote:
Johnny Billquist <b...@softjar.se> writes:
With rotating rust, the order of operations can make a huge difference
in speed. With SSDs you don't have those seek times to begin with, so
I would expect the gains to be marginal.
For reordering, I
roller sort out in which order to do them to make
it the most efficient.
With rotating rust, the order of operations can make a huge difference
in speed. With SSDs you don't have those seek times to begin with, so I
would expect the gains to be marginal.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist
movement. Most
of disk I/O times are head movements. I'd guess that makes up about 90%
of the time.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: b...@softjar.se || Reading murder book
On 2016-03-14 00:08, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
I had occasion a couple of days ago to try to block-copy a very large
filesystem from a xen dom0 to another machine across a fast local network.
I tried this:
sysctl -w kern.sbmax=1000
sysctl -w net.inet.tcp.sendbuf_auto=0
dd if=/dev/rsd0g
xinstall blindly assume that I have posix_spawn?)
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: b...@softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip
.
Hey. It is Linux. What did you expect? :-)
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: b...@softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip - B
are not
describing the same concept as the Linux bottom halves, as the Linux
bottom halves do not handle the hardware interrupt itself, and they can
be interrupted by anything.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic
on kernel stack in
kernel address space. Is this outdated?
Runs on kernel stack in kernel space is not the same thing as the
Linux concept of bottom half. :-)
That said, I don't know what the figured referred to is, but the text
quoted do not say bottom half at least...
Johnny
--
Johnny
On 2015-06-04 09:43, Matt Thomas wrote:
On Jun 3, 2015, at 10:05 PM, Aleksej Saushev a...@inbox.ru wrote:
Just in case you don't know, nearly any user has libxml2 and libxslt
installed anyway.
None of my systems do.
I thought Aleksej was joking... The suggestion to get rid of groff
On 2015-06-04 12:44, Robert Swindells wrote:
Johnny Billquist b...@softjar.se wrote:
On 2015-06-04 09:43, Matt Thomas wrote:
On Jun 3, 2015, at 10:05 PM, Aleksej Saushev a...@inbox.ru wrote:
Just in case you don't know, nearly any user has libxml2 and libxslt
installed anyway.
None of my
.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: b...@softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip - B. Idol
?
Not in RSX, you can't...
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: b...@softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip - B. Idol
On 2015-05-29 16:35, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
On May 29, 2015, at 6:22 AM, Johnny Billquist b...@update.uu.se wrote:
On 2015-05-29 08:18, Matt Thomas wrote:
...
I have a Phase IV+ (so I didn’t have to much with the physical address)
implementation but never got around to writing
On 2015-05-28 21:19, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote:
paul_kon...@dell.com writes:
And DECnet nodes exist around the Internet; the “Hobbyist DECnet”
group (“hecnet”) is the main focus of that activity as far as I know.
...and while I'm sure Johnny Billquist can supply more details, and
correct me
On 2015-05-29 08:18, Matt Thomas wrote:
On May 28, 2015, at 4:15 PM, Johnny Billquist b...@update.uu.se wrote:
On 2015-05-28 21:19, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote:
paul_kon...@dell.com writes:
And DECnet nodes exist around the Internet; the “Hobbyist DECnet”
group (“hecnet”) is the main focus
On 2014-06-30 08:29, Will Dignazio wrote:
Hi,
I've dug through the so* code, and haven't found any table or list
dedicated to created sockets. The exception only seems to be fsocreate,
which attaches a file descriptor that could be used to find the assigned
socket.
I'm working on a module
On 2014-06-30 08:52, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2014-06-30 08:29, Will Dignazio wrote:
Hi,
I've dug through the so* code, and haven't found any table or list
dedicated to created sockets. The exception only seems to be fsocreate,
which attaches a file descriptor that could be used to find
On 2014-04-01 23:04, Warner Losh wrote:
On Apr 1, 2014, at 5:49 AM, Johnny Billquist b...@softjar.se wrote:
Good points.
Is this the right time to ask why booting NetBSD on a VAX (a 3500) now takes
more than 15 minutes? What is the system doing all that time???
FreeBSD used to take forever
On 2014-04-02 14:00, Martin Husemann wrote:
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 01:55:04PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
The time between entering a username and getting the password prompt in
the same 3500 with the latest release is something like 30 seconds.
Mostly it needs someone with an affected
On 2014-04-02 15:38, Anders Magnusson wrote:
Martin Husemann skrev 2014-04-02 15:33:
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 03:13:19PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
What model of VAX do you have, and how long does it take to boot, to the
point where you get the login prompt on the console?
VS4000/M96
On 2014-04-02 16:10, John Nemeth wrote:
On Apr 2, 1:55pm, Johnny Billquist wrote:
} The root fs in on nfs, as I'm running the machine diskless. Disk is
} served from a -current NetBSD/alpha system sitting right next to it. And
} I have changed the Alpha to run at 10 MB/s half duplex, and I have
On 2014-04-01 01:47, Erik Fair wrote:
On Mar 27, 2014, at 11:29 , matthew green m...@eterna.com.au wrote:
it certainly can be improved for this situation, but i've
got an SS10 with mis-matched cpus (2x100mhz, 1x150mhz,
the latter with a bigger cache and thus significantly
faster than the
On 2014-02-07 01:23, Michael van Elst wrote:
b...@softjar.se (Johnny Billquist) writes:
This whole thread and implementation is broken, I think.
The driver should keep the DTR low for as long as approriate. But there
is no reason why the close should hang on that.
If you open the port again
On 2014-02-06 14:58, Michael van Elst wrote:
m...@msys.ch (Marc Balmer) writes:
This delay makes no sense, and I don't think there is a great risk of
breaking someone applications.
You very easily break almost all automated applications that talk to
modems. Dropping DTR for only a few
On 2013-12-07 20:51, David Laight wrote:
On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 12:38:42AM +0100, Johnny Billquist wrote:
You know, you might also hit a different problem, which I have had on
many occasions.
NFS using 8k transfers saturating the ethernet on the server, making the
server drop IP fragemnts
path becomes weird if you can
have several paths to a directory. You can no longer traverse .. upwards
to find the actual path you might be on. And travelling some paths might
end up with access denied, while others will work.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || I'm on a bus
On 2013-08-19 08:41, David Holland wrote:
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 06:04:55PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Looking at 2.11BSD, it looks like this:
struct direct {
[snip]
In NetBSD (fairly current):
struct dirent {
careful, you want struct direct, not struct dirent
On 2013-08-19 15:56, Manuel Wiesinger wrote:
On 08/19/13 09:31, David Laight wrote:
For defrag I'd have though you'd work from the inode table and treat
directories no different from files.
That's what I'm doing.
I have an additional optimisation step, which tries to move files in the
same
the contents of a directory to find the
subdirectories?
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: b...@softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip - B
On 2013-08-18 17:33, Manuel Wiesinger wrote:
On 08/18/13 15:59, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Not sure I understand the question. Are you suggesting that you don't
need to scan through all the contents of a directory to find the
subdirectories?
No, I'm in a step where I just search
On 2013-08-18 17:50, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2013-08-18 17:38, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 05:36:47PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
There is nothing in the directory entry that even tells if the entry
is a directory or just a plain file, unless I remember wrong
for specific address ranges...
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: b...@softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip - B. Idol
On 2013-07-27 01:25, Erik Fair wrote:
On Jul 25, 2013, at 07:37, Michael Lorenz macal...@netbsd.org wrote:
Easy mistake to make and hard to catch since it rarely ever causes trouble (unless
you're running some weird video mode where width height)
I believe that's called portrait mode and
On 2011-09-29 16.01, Rhialto wrote:
On Thu 29 Sep 2011 at 08:50:24 -0400, Mouse wrote:
The cache and mmu are probably harder than the cpu :-)
I'm not sure the PDP-10 even _had_ cache; I'd have to do some digging
on that score. And I have no idea what it had for an MMU. The only
I think
On 2011-08-07 18.38, David Holland wrote:
On Sun, Aug 07, 2011 at 06:29:01PM +0200, Marc Balmer wrote:
And what is auto-erasing files good for in the first place? I don't get
the point, for me it's calling for trouble.
Traditionally, it's so /tmp doesn't grow without bound, which once
On 06/27/11 21:02, Dennis Ferguson wrote:
On 27 Jun 2011, at 10:27 , der Mouse wrote:
That what it is reasonable for a disk to do consensus *is* the
interface spec I was talking about, not the de-jure non-spec of you
get whatever the device (via its driver) feels like giving you.
That's
is for. :-)
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: b...@softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip - B. Idol
to be very architecture specific.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: b...@softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip - B. Idol
On 2011-06-24 02:15, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Jun 23, 2011, at 7:43 34PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2011-06-23 23:05, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Jun 23, 2011, at 4:36 25AM, Robert Elz wrote:
Date:Wed, 22 Jun 2011 19:30:55 -0400 (EDT)
From:der Mousemo...@rodents
On 01/18/11 16:03, Julio Merino wrote:
On 1/18/11 2:40 PM, der Mouse wrote:
The point is that it is a non-changing, human readable identifier of
the source tree that hopefully changes often enough to be able to
tell two versions apart.
I care about bootloader timestamps when I'm hacking
On 01/18/11 16:58, haad wrote:
Just a curious question here. What problem are we trying to solve?
What is the benefit for the rest of the world to not have the information?
Just being curious...
We would like to have reproducable builds which means that if you will run
build on top of same
VAXen might be caused by a behaviour like this, but this is very much
just speculation on my part right now. So if someone could shed some
light on how this works, it would be wonderful.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || I'm on a bus
be a problem, but I'm not sure. But based
on your comments in your design, I seem to read that the idea was that
the address pointer should be reset on every exception.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
On 11/19/10 01:50, Johnny Billquist wrote:
mutex exit spin with unlock appears to totally have been because some
spin locks were managed to be taken though mutex_vector_enter, even
though I have a mutex_spin_enter. I have no idea how on earth that path
would be possible, but after changing
On 2010-11-19 01:13, Andrew Doran wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:30:59PM +0100, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 11/17/10 11:38, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 11/17/10 05:15, Matt Thomas wrote:
On Nov 16, 2010, at 8:04 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2010-11-17 04:52, Matt Thomas wrote
, or if the
hppa code actually can lock up a system as well, if you are unlucky
(chances on an unloaded system is rather low, but I think it can happen).
Anyone using the hppa port *heavily* around here?
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || I'm on a bus
On 11/17/10 05:15, Matt Thomas wrote:
On Nov 16, 2010, at 8:04 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2010-11-17 04:52, Matt Thomas wrote:
Not true. Spinlocks must enter through mutex_spin_enter and adaptive mutexes
enter through mutex_enter. The corresponding is true for exiting as well
On 11/17/10 11:38, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 11/17/10 05:15, Matt Thomas wrote:
On Nov 16, 2010, at 8:04 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2010-11-17 04:52, Matt Thomas wrote:
Not true. Spinlocks must enter through mutex_spin_enter and adaptive
mutexes
enter through mutex_enter
On 11/17/10 13:55, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 01:31:51PM +0100, Johnny Billquist wrote:
But you could perhaps argue that this is a bug in itself, and
mutex_vector_enter should not take a spin mutex on its own when a
mutex_spin_enter function exist.
I don't think
On 11/17/10 14:34, Andrew Doran wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 07:55:13AM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 01:31:51PM +0100, Johnny Billquist wrote:
But you could perhaps argue that this is a bug in itself, and
mutex_vector_enter should not take a spin mutex on its
On 11/17/10 05:03, matthew green wrote:
- hppa seems to have a mutex implemented without cas. is it broken?
FWIW, the sparc implementation is only broken on SMP.
Did they use their own mutex_enter and mutex_spin_enter? If so, it might
be that the fact that mutex_vector_enter has it's own
. And there is not even room in there for a lock
on the rwlock itself. And the structure assumes you can atomically
modify several fields in the same operation.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: b
and abused in ways that seems to
make a lot of implicit assumptions on the mutexes which go beyond what I
might expect. Still working on it, though.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: b
On 11/14/10 20:16, David Holland wrote:
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 01:45:40AM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
Wow. I guess you can add me to the list of people leaving.
There is no perfect world and we don't have enough resources.
Any help to keep support for ancient machines are
On 11/15/10 14:55, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 11/14/10 20:16, David Holland wrote:
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 01:45:40AM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
Wow. I guess you can add me to the list of people leaving.
There is no perfect world and we don't have enough resources.
Any help to keep
On 11/12/10 03:58, David Holland wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 06:35:55PM +0100, Johnny Billquist wrote:
[spl mutex stuff]
Hum? So that was introduced with the new locking code then? Because
back when we used splraise/splx, the above would not have worked.
This would have worked
On 11/12/10 12:16, Andrew Doran wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:09:20AM +, Andrew Doran wrote:
It was deliberate. rwlocks are only effective in situations where the
codepath is heavyweight. So I felt while it is worthwhile optimising them
if possible, an all out jihad is just not
On 11/12/10 13:56, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 06:35:55PM +0100, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Hmm. Hard to argue about this. While I think it's nice if we try to
keep the kernel agnostic, the user api is not something I'm arguing
about changing. But it would be nice if we could
On 11/12/10 15:00, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 11/12/10 14:55, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 02:35:59PM +0100, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Augh! And in which way would that improve things? Restarting
operations, as well as checking if they should be restarted will
hardly
On 11/12/10 15:07, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 02:58:16PM +0100, Johnny Billquist wrote:
lock(interlock)
lock(a)
lock(b)
unlock(interlock)
I realized I'm getting sloppy here. When I say locks in this
context, I'm actually talking about spin mutexes. Simple locks
On 11/12/10 15:22, Antti Kantee wrote:
On Fri Nov 12 2010 at 14:30:58 +0100, Johnny Billquist wrote:
By reasoning that we should design for tomorrows hardware, we might as
well design explicitly for x86_64, and let all other emulate that. But
in the past, I believe NetBSD have tried to raise
On 11/12/10 15:52, Andrew Doran wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 02:30:58PM +0100, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Hmm. The thing with rwlocks though is that the actual concept is
just that you have locks that you want to grab, with the expanded
idea that you can have them at two different levels. read
On 11/12/10 16:38, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
Ooo. Really friendly here. Yes, excellent idea. Drive people away. That
will surely help. Please remind me again, why would people in general
want to run NetBSD instead of Linux or FreeBSD?
It's good thing to keep support for old machines with MI API.
On 11/12/10 15:56, Andrew Doran wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 09:50:52AM -0500, der Mouse wrote:
Over 15 years ago NetBSD had a possibility to take everyone into
account [...]
So what you are arguing is that MI needn't be so much MI anymore, and
that supporting anything more than mainstream
On 11/12/10 16:12, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
Oh well! I guess I should go away now.
And me, and everyone else running anything but x86_64 (and, maybe,
i386; I don't know whether that's sufficiently modern to count).
Yes, please go.
Ooo. Really friendly here. Yes, excellent idea. Drive people
On 11/12/10 16:23, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
Ooo. Really friendly here. Yes, excellent idea. Drive people away. That
will surely help. Please remind me again, why would people in general
want to run NetBSD instead of Linux or FreeBSD?
It's good thing to keep support for old machines with MI API.
On 2010-11-12 17:48, Jonathan Perkin wrote:
* On 2010-11-12 at 16:26 GMT, Johnny Billquist wrote:
What? That NetBSD no longer supports most of the architectures it used to?
Unless you've redefined the meaning of 'most' I think that's a pretty
wild and inaccurate claim.
Please try and keep
On 2010-11-12 17:58, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
Antti Kanteepo...@cs.hut.fi wrote:
On Fri Nov 12 2010 at 14:30:58 +0100, Johnny Billquist wrote:
By reasoning that we should design for tomorrows hardware, we might as
well design explicitly for x86_64, and let all other emulate
.
Without doing any deeper analysis - what about multiprocessor systems?
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: b...@softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive
is not a realistic option.
But if you say that you are doing this for rump, then maybe I am wrong,
and that it really is a realistic option. Care to point to where your
rump alternative files are, and I can look at that and ponder this for a
while?
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist
insist on coming up with stupid replies?
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: b...@softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip - B. Idol
On 2010-11-13 03:26, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 01:11:01AM +0100, Johnny Billquist wrote:
I just wanted a mutex and a lock interface which I could inline, and
which only had the idea that I wanted to take or release a mutex or a
lock. Some additional functions, like
On 2010-11-13 04:17, Matt Thomas wrote:
On Nov 12, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2010-11-13 03:26, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 01:11:01AM +0100, Johnny Billquist wrote:
It's pretty clear, looking at the VAX architecture and many of the early
VAX
On 2010-11-13 04:49, Matt Thomas wrote:
On Nov 12, 2010, at 7:39 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Eh...?
Now I'm not following you.
Yes, if you grab a lock in some code, and then get an interrupt, and in that
interrupt routine, you try to grab the same lock, you loose.
That should be pretty
On 11/11/10 18:07, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
Hello,
Similar questions were raised a few times.. let's go through this again.
Sorry if I am rehashing old stuff then...
Johnny Billquistb...@softjar.se wrote:
With mutex_spin, you instead store the original spl at the first
der Mouse wrote:
total memory = 2047 MB
avail memory = 1999 MB
total memory = 256 MB
avail memory = 239 MB
Some graphics chips, especially on lower-end machines, use main
memory, thus making it unavailable to the CPU.
It's not that simple. I've seen this for a very long time, including
on
.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: b...@softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip - B. Idol
--
Johnny Billquist || I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: b...@softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip - B. Idol
der Mouse wrote:
and most modern network hardware will turn their nose up at them
AFAIK.
IMO anything that pretends to implement IPv4 but which doesn't do
noncontiguous netasks is simply broken, I don't care whether it comes
from Cisco or Netgear or NetBSD.
Not, I suppose, that anyone
Julio Merino wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Johnny Billquist b...@softjar.se wrote:
Julio Merino wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Masao Uebayashi uebay...@gmail.com
wrote:
Let me clarify:
- NetBSD is used for many purposes.
- The official binary should choose the sane
to be in that same segment?
Just curious about what people think/want here...
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: b...@softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive
Iain Hibbert wrote:
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Johnny Billquist wrote:
The problem you are highlighting is another one, and one which I agree it
would be nice to have a solution to. But the only solution I can come up with
is to be able to refer to disks by their name in the disk label, or something
Masao Uebayashi wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Jochen Kunz jk...@unixag-kl.fh-kl.de wrote:
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:53:43 +0900
Masao Uebayashi uebay...@gmail.com wrote:
[device node ownership and modes on devfs]
Is it acceptable for you to do such things by some layering?
Anything
More or less, because I don't have all the details. If you were to
post the dmesg from your booting, I could give you the exact thing.
Are you sure your USB disk shows up as sd? Looking at the config file, I
would have thought it would match wd.
If it is wd, then the config should have
Quentin Garnier wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 08:51:48PM +0100, Johnny Billquist wrote:
More or less, because I don't have all the details. If you were to
post the dmesg from your booting, I could give you the exact thing.
Are you sure your USB disk shows up as sd? Looking at the config
file
Quentin Garnier wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 09:14:09PM +0100, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Quentin Garnier wrote:
[...]
My answer only intended to show that the device enumeration isn't
random, depending on if you add/remove other devices, which is what
Masao was claiming.
Your answer only
It would help if you started by showing where your disk would be in the
device tree. Then I can tell you what (more or less) you need in your
config file.
USB, or whatever else, is no magic. You can specify explicitly where
your disk is, and have it show up with a specific device number even
Perhaps not a very meaningful voice, but I think it makes sense to split
them.
Johnny
David Holland wrote:
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 11:03:44AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
This thread?
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-kern/2009/07/21/msg005526.html
That was later - that's
Hmmm...
Eduardo Horvath wrote:
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010, David Holland wrote:
Anyhow, it seems to me that isolating it from changes to ffs is likely
to result in less breakage over time, not more. Can you expand on your
reasoning some?
The most significant parts that are shared are the directory
101 - 196 of 196 matches
Mail list logo
