Le 17/12/2018 à 23:35, Jason Thorpe a écrit :
On Dec 17, 2018, at 2:00 PM, Maxime Villard wrote:
Now I'm re-putting the subject on the table, because, as if it wasn't
already glaringly obvious, COMPAT_SVR4 is broken beyond repair. I keep
unintentionally finding bugs in it, and it just doesn't
Hi all,
I implemented a patch that make vioif(4) support multi-queue. And I have put
the patch on ftp.n.o. I used vioif(4) multiqueue on qemu-kvm on Linux kernel
4.19.5. And It seems to be working fine.
https://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/misc/yamaguchi/vioif_mutilq.patch
The summary of the
Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 13:16, Maxime Villard a écrit :
> It is clear that COMPAT_SVR4 is completely buggy, but to be clear on the
> use of the code:
+1 to removal for COMPAT_SVR4, there is always attic.
I remember I've been also doing some mechanical changes in the area in
past, and also
Le 18/12/2018 à 06:51, Martin Husemann a écrit :
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 02:35:11PM -0800, Jason Thorpe wrote:
On Dec 17, 2018, at 2:00 PM, Maxime Villard wrote:
Now I'm re-putting the subject on the table, because, as if it wasn't
already glaringly obvious, COMPAT_SVR4 is broken beyond
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 08:53:54AM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> They did _not_ cause measureable performance problems of any kind, and
> though it is theoretically possible to do this sort of thing via a
> tightly-protected userspace helper process, I prototyped that too and
> it gets very
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 03:19:45PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 11:07:23PM +0900, Ryota Ozaki wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 6:30 AM Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 12:58:21AM +0900, Ryota Ozaki wrote:
> > > > Before that, I want to
> On Dec 18, 2018, at 12:39 AM, Maxime Villard wrote:
>
> I've made one:
>
> http://wiki.netbsd.org/attic_museum/
>
> I took the entries from src/doc/CHANGES.
This is great, thanks.
-- thorpej
> On Dec 18, 2018, at 4:16 AM, Maxime Villard wrote:
>
> Judging by the configuration files:
>
> * COMPAT_SVR4 is available on sparc, sparc64, *68k, sun2, sun3, atari,
> hp300, amiga. This is in terms of files.svr4 inclusions. I suspect that
> a part of these inclusions were added
thor...@me.com (Jason Thorpe) writes:
> AFAIK, none of our m68k platforms ever had a "native" SVR4.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga_Unix
Also some hardware running NetBSD/mvme68k had a native SVR4.
AFAIK mac68k only got up to SVR3.
The compat code was also necessary to run some m68k SunOS
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 06:20:12PM -, Michael van Elst wrote:
> thor...@me.com (Jason Thorpe) writes:
>
> > AFAIK, none of our m68k platforms ever had a "native" SVR4.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga_Unix
A donation of which is what made COMPAT_SVR4 on m68k possible. :-)
Not that I'd
In article ,
JaromÃr DoleÄ ek wrote:
>Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 13:16, Maxime Villard a écrit :
>> It is clear that COMPAT_SVR4 is completely buggy, but to be clear on the
>> use of the code:
>
>+1 to removal for COMPAT_SVR4, there is always attic.
>
>I remember I've been also doing some
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 02:57:54PM +0100, Maxime Villard wrote:
> Should I re-start a fight about dropping COMPAT_SVR4? Because I keep finding
> bugs, and it's becoming tiring. Over time I've come across at least a good
> dozen of bugs in it, by just grepping through the tree searching for
12 matches
Mail list logo
