proposed speedup for diff -q

2014-05-15 Thread gwes
is not invoked with -w, -i, or -b The changes pass the regression tests and all the tests I've tried. I believe the changes are not machine dependent. I invite criticism and counterexamples. Example: $ ls -l trash.120403 trash.120711 -rw--- 1 gwes users 249686538 Apr 3 2012 trash.120403 -rw-r

bug in locate

2010-05-21 Thread gwes
In the 4.7 release of locate there's a bug where locate -i 'old' matches Old OLD olD etc but locate -i '*old*' only matches old There is a missing conditional in fastfind.c: BEGIN diff -u HERE - fastfind.c 1.10 --- fastfind.c.old Mon Jun 8 16:18:57 2009 +++ fastfind.c Fri May 21

Re: pair(4) (was: connect routing domains on layer 2)

2015-10-26 Thread gwes
On 10/24/15 06:46, Reyk Floeter wrote: vether doesn't help as it is not transmitting any traffic. in other words, "vether is a bridge endpoint" "pair is a bridge link" This may be a dead topic, but doesn't bridge_output() transmit for vether(4)? Or am I missing the point entirely? pair(4)

Thanks for pair(4)

2015-11-10 Thread gwes
Thanks very much to reyk@ and everyone else who helped create pair(4). It makes my configuration much simpler and (more) maintainable. Geoff Steckel

Re: restricting DNS to port 53

2015-11-04 Thread gwes
Apologies... I found a set of how-tos on the web. They suggest the "use a separate address for the internal nsd". I will change my setup accordingly. On 11/04/15 09:31, gwes wrote: Will unbound and nsd be restricted to port 53 only? Restricting unbound and nsd to port 53 would be

restricting DNS to port 53

2015-11-04 Thread gwes
Will unbound and nsd be restricted to port 53 only? Restricting unbound and nsd to port 53 would be a flag day for me. I am simulating bind's views for my split horizon by using two copies of nsd, one of which serves external queries and one which unbound queries for internal zones. They share

Re: Scheduler hack for multi-threaded processes

2016-03-23 Thread gwes
On 03/23/2016 18:58, Alexandre Ratchov wrote: On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 09:35:50PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: This doesn't only change the sched_yield() behaviour, but also modifies how in-kernel yield() calls behave for threaded processes. That is probably not right. So here is a diff that

Re: reloading pf through ansible easy hook

2016-11-22 Thread gwes
On 11/22/16 15:36, John Boeske wrote: On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 10:46 AM, John Boeske wrote I don't understand this philosophical point - why wouldn't you want the rc.d framework to manage pf, quota, etc. whenever it's natural. With pf, for example, it surely is. One of the reasons I loved

kernel crash operating USB device programmer

2017-03-10 Thread gwes
I'm trying to operate an Atmel AVRISP mkII device programmer using the "avrdude" program. The kernel crashes identically running either 6.0 release or 6.1 snapshot. Is this a known problem? Here is the ddb output and the dmesg. I will try to produce any other useful data or to use ddb to examine

scan_ffs, take 2

2019-02-16 Thread gwes
This is an update to scan_ffs to (a) identify UFS2 superblocks and (b) output a great deal of information about what it finds. It distinguishes primary superblocks from alternate ones. It does its best to give enough information to untangle good partitions from remnants of obsolete partitions. It

scan_ffs minimal ufs2

2019-02-17 Thread gwes
Fixed 2 bugs: size output was in bytes not DEV_BSIZE blocks would not find fs with fs_frag == 4096 Added: recognize UFS2 Index: scan_ffs.c === RCS file: /cvs/src/sbin/scan_ffs/scan_ffs.c,v retrieving revision 1.21 diff -u

scan_ffs w/UFS2

2019-02-13 Thread gwes
This is a patch for scan_ffs to make it find UFS2 partitions. The following test data represents a sample of the various disks available to me at this time. All of the tests are on 6.3 amd64. I haven't updated to 6.4 or snapshots on this machine. By design, scan_ffs can only find intact first

Re: scan_ffs(8) and FFS2 filesystems

2019-02-08 Thread gwes
On 02/08/19 15:35, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote: I think it's fair to give the user a chance to understand why scan_ffs(8) won't help in this case. ok? --- scan_ffs.8.~1.16.~ Mon Mar 24 00:28:46 2008 +++ scan_ffs.8 Fri Feb 8 21:31:10 2019 @@ -136,6 +136,7 @@ you out of a jam when