On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 08:58:36AM +0900, Rin Okuyama wrote:
> I'm also one who feels hesitate to import Linux'ism into our basic
> components. However, for this problem in particular, I still think
> it is not a good choice to keep NetBSD support in driver-aarch64.c:
>
> (a) Our sysctl(3)-based
Hi,
(tech-toolchain@ added to cc)
On 2020/10/16 1:49, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
On 15.10.2020 17:14, Rin Okuyama wrote:
On 2020/10/15 16:12, matthew green wrote:
Martin Husemann writes:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 05:28:12PM +1100, matthew green wrote:
you could try reverting most of our changes
Date:Fri, 16 Oct 2020 04:07:31 +
From:"Thomas Mueller"
Message-ID: <20201016052422.e063084...@mail.netbsd.org>
| Should I add ,linux to the end of the procfs line?
You can, but it isn't needed these days -- I used to mount procfs twice,
once without the linux
Excerpt from Rin Okuyama:
> Nowadays, -o linux is turned on by default (unless nolinux is
> specified explicitly). Still, native apps probably should not
> depend on it.
> This needs MI changes to procfs, not MD to aarch64. Should we
> enable /proc/cpuinfo unconditionally?
My NetBSD
On 15.10.2020 17:14, Rin Okuyama wrote:
> On 2020/10/15 16:12, matthew green wrote:
>> Martin Husemann writes:
>>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 05:28:12PM +1100, matthew green wrote:
you could try reverting most of our changes to this file and
making sure you run with /proc mounted -o linux.
On 2020/10/15 16:12, matthew green wrote:
Martin Husemann writes:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 05:28:12PM +1100, matthew green wrote:
you could try reverting most of our changes to this file and
making sure you run with /proc mounted -o linux. ryo@ recently
added additional /proc/cpuinfo support
