On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Cagle, John (ISS-Houston) wrote:
> Thanks! It was an ACPI-related problem. I disabled ACPI
> (hint.acpi.0.disabled="1" in /boot/device.hints) and rebooted and now
> both com ports show up properly as they did with FreeBSD 4.8. (These
> are just standard com ports, btw.)
We
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Vallo Kallaste wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 07:35:59PM -0500, Jeff Roberson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Do you know of any problem other than idlepri breakage? I just fixed
> > that. I'm about to get on a plane so I don't have time to benchmark it.
> > If you have
Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :How does this break the read() API? The read() API, when called
> :on a NBIO fd is *supposed* to return EAGAIN, if the request cannot
> :be immediately satisfied, but could be satisfied later. Right now,
> :it blocks. This looks like breakage of disk I/O introducing a
>
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 07:35:59PM -0500, Jeff Roberson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you know of any problem other than idlepri breakage? I just fixed
> that. I'm about to get on a plane so I don't have time to benchmark it.
> If you have a chance I'd love to see how the most recent fixes eff
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 16:24, Jeff Roberson wrote:
> > > It probably still needs some tweaking but it seems to be MUCH better now.
> > > New algorithm entirely.
> > >
> > > nice +20 processes will not run if any
I agree. In fact, it was. I only posted to -current after receiving no
response for a few days (since I suspected that it might have been related
to my upgrade to 5.0). I personally have never messed with sendmail's
configuration because on my system it functions only as a local mailer. I
guess
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 16:24, Jeff Roberson wrote:
> > It probably still needs some tweaking but it seems to be MUCH better now.
> > New algorithm entirely.
> >
> > nice +20 processes will not run if anything else wants to.
> >
> > idleprio is still not wor
> I have commited libthr. To try this out you'll need to do the following
>
> 1. cvsup
> 2. rebuild world and kernel
> 3. install world and kernel
> 4. build libthr from src/lib/libthr
> 5. Either replace /usr/lib/libc_r.so.5 with /usr/lib/libthr.so.1 or
> relink your applications against li
Thanks! It was an ACPI-related problem. I disabled ACPI
(hint.acpi.0.disabled="1" in /boot/device.hints) and rebooted and now
both com ports show up properly as they did with FreeBSD 4.8. (These
are just standard com ports, btw.)
I didn't realize ACPI was involved in legacy com port detection.
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Jeff Roberson wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Bruce Evans wrote:
> > > ... The scaling of niceness was re-broken in -current about 3
> > > years ago to "fix" the priority inversion problems. This is with
> > > SCHED_4BSD. SCHED_ULE h
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Jeff Roberson wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Bruce Evans wrote:
> > ... The scaling of niceness was re-broken in -current about 3
> > years ago to "fix" the priority inversion problems. This is with
> > SCHED_4BSD. SCHED_ULE has larger problems.
>
> Do you know of any problem
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Cagle, John (ISS-Houston) wrote:
> I'm having a problem with -current on a ProLiant BL10e blade server. On
> the blade server, we use a serial console on sio0/COM1. This works
> perfectly with 4.8, but for some reason, the sio driver doesn't see COM1
> at all, and assigns COM
Hi folks,
I'm running 5.0-RELEASE-p7 on i386 and investigated how quake3 (linux)
would be doing at the moment. I had some relative success on 4.7
(quake3 ran ok, in 3d acceleration, but only for about 30 seconds, at
which point the whole machine froze solid) so I hoped it might just
work out. Th
can we have a subject ID?
the KSE list prefixes with [KSE] and I've grown used to not ignoring
those :-)
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Peter Wemm wrote:
> Julian Elischer wrote:
> > Yes I think so..
> > I think 'threads is a better name thatn 'kse' though kse
> > is good in that it's real quick to type :-
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 12:39:30PM -0800, Nate Lawson wrote:
> I was testing some changes to make fxp MPSAFE and got a LOR in allocating
> the mbuf cluster and then finally a panic when trying to dereference the
> cluster header. Is the mbuf system MPSAFE? Is it ok to call m_getcl
> with a devic
Julian Elischer wrote:
> Yes I think so..
> I think 'threads is a better name thatn 'kse' though kse
> is good in that it's real quick to type :-)
OK, done. It seems to me we've needed one for a while now.
Subscribe by either:
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads
or
echo "su
A thought on 'fixing AIO..'
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> A better solution would be to implement a new system call, similar to
> pread(), which simply checks the buffer cache and returns a short read
> or an error if the data is not present. If the call fails you
:How does this break the read() API? The read() API, when called
:on a NBIO fd is *supposed* to return EAGAIN, if the request cannot
:be immediately satisfied, but could be satisfied later. Right now,
:it blocks. This looks like breakage of disk I/O introducing a
:stall, when socket I/O doesn't
Yes I think so..
I think 'threads is a better name thatn 'kse' though kse
is good in that it's real quick to type :-)
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Peter Wemm wrote:
> Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> > KSE mailing list, starting Monday or so:
> > ] We still haven't heard from jeff with regard to the process
> >
Terry Lambert wrote:
Stijn Hoop wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 10:54:45PM -0500, Jeff Roberson wrote:
I have commited libthr. To try this out you'll need to do the following
I know very very little about threads, but I'm interested as to what the
purpose is of this library. Is ther
Michael W . Lucas wrote:
While I'm all for a sense of humor, and agree that implementation of
the IP_EVIL flag is vital for FreeBSD to be a modern operating system,
it stops being funny when it breaks world.
Its a pathetic waste of everyones time when it breaks world.
Mark
smime.p7s
Descrip
I'm letting you all know since I wont be able to look at thr bugs for a
week.
Also, I'm very interested in hearing comments on ULE when I get back.
Cheers,
Jeff
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-curren
Matthew Dillon wrote:
>Peter Wemm wrote:
> :Terry Lambert wrote:
> :> > No. It gives the ability for a thread to block on a syscall without
> :> > stalling the entire system. Just try using mysqld on a system using libc_r
> :> > and heavy disk IO. You can't select() on a read() from disk. Thats
Peter Wemm wrote:
> Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Peter Wemm wrote:
> > > No. It gives the ability for a thread to block on a syscall without
> > > stalling the entire system. Just try using mysqld on a system using libc_r
> > > and heavy disk IO. You can't select() on a read() from disk. Thats the
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
> > On (2003/04/02 01:54), Jeff Roberson wrote:
> >
> > > It probably still needs some tweaking but it seems to be MUCH better now.
> > > New algorithm entirely.
> > >
> > > nice +20 processes will not run if anyth
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 16:24, Jeff Roberson wrote:
> > It probably still needs some tweaking but it seems to be MUCH better now.
> > New algorithm entirely.
> >
> > nice +20 processes will not run if anything else wants to.
> >
> > idleprio is still not wo
That's a cute trick. The ultimate solution is to implement
a semi-synchronous message passing API to replace the myrid
system calls we have now. Roughly speaking, what the Amiga
did for messages, ports, and I/O, is far superior then what
is done in Linux and *BSD. You get th
Jeff Roberson wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Peter Wemm wrote:
> > > No. It gives the ability for a thread to block on a syscall without
> > > stalling the entire system. Just try using mysqld on a system using libc_r
> > > and heavy disk IO. You can't select() on a read()
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 01:29, Don wrote:
> Seriously though, I _always_ replace sendmail with postfix and I have
> never had a problem doing so. Other than one or two really trivial
> anyway.
>
> What problems do people run into when replacing sendmail? How many of
> those problems come as a result of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi. This is the qmail-send program at norton.palomine.net.
> I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
> This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
GRRR. a spammer is sending out a batch of spam right now and us
Peter Wemm wrote:
> Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> > KSE mailing list, starting Monday or so:
> > ] We still haven't heard from jeff with regard to the process
> > ] signal mask removal.
>
> We can add new mailing lists really easily now - it takes about 20-30 seconds.
> Would it be worth adding a free
Matthew Dillon wrote:
> A better solution would be to give AIO the capability to
> operate synchronously if the operation would occur in a
> non-blocking fashion (inclusive of blockages on page faults),
> and asynchronously otherwise.
Without wanting to get too far off into the w
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 16:24, Jeff Roberson wrote:
> It probably still needs some tweaking but it seems to be MUCH better now.
> New algorithm entirely.
>
> nice +20 processes will not run if anything else wants to.
>
> idleprio is still not working correctly. bde reports that this causes a
> 3% perf
:Terry Lambert wrote:
:> Peter Wemm wrote:
:> > No. It gives the ability for a thread to block on a syscall without
:> > stalling the entire system. Just try using mysqld on a system using libc_r
:> > and heavy disk IO. You can't select() on a read() from disk. Thats the
:> > ultimate reason t
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Juli Mallett wrote:
> I have a PNY USB SmartMedia reader which works excellently with 5.x
> with 8M media, but which blows up with 32M media. I'd assume this is
> due to improper geometry or something, but I really have no idea.
> Insert-reinsert produces no change in results,
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 06:37:21PM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Peter Wemm wrote:
>
> > Terry Lambert wrote:
> >
> > > KSE mailing list, starting Monday or so:
> > > ] We still haven't heard from jeff with regard to the process
> > > ] signal mask removal.
> >
> > We can ad
Terry Lambert wrote:
> Peter Wemm wrote:
> > No. It gives the ability for a thread to block on a syscall without
> > stalling the entire system. Just try using mysqld on a system using libc_r
> > and heavy disk IO. You can't select() on a read() from disk. Thats the
> > ultimate reason to do it
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Peter Wemm wrote:
> > No. It gives the ability for a thread to block on a syscall without
> > stalling the entire system. Just try using mysqld on a system using libc_r
> > and heavy disk IO. You can't select() on a read() from disk. Thats the
> > ul
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Peter Wemm wrote:
> Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> > KSE mailing list, starting Monday or so:
> > ] We still haven't heard from jeff with regard to the process
> > ] signal mask removal.
>
> We can add new mailing lists really easily now - it takes about 20-30 seconds.
> Would it b
Peter Wemm wrote:
> No. It gives the ability for a thread to block on a syscall without
> stalling the entire system. Just try using mysqld on a system using libc_r
> and heavy disk IO. You can't select() on a read() from disk. Thats the
> ultimate reason to do it. The SMP parallelism is a bon
Jeff Roberson wrote:
> Perhaps I should start quoting posix. I wonder what my legal rights
> are given the copyright. hm..
Educational use.
FWIW, my reading of POSIX.1 says "Per process mask, per threads
masks".
The real question is "What happens when I kill -9/-15 a libthr
process with a lot o
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Gordon Tetlow wrote:
> I think it was a libthr linked app after I killed it:
Yeah, this is a problem with the thread single exit and suspend code. I
haven't fixed it yet. Thanks for the report.
> lock order reversal
> 1st 0xc679d248 process lock (process lock) @ /local/us
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Peter Wemm wrote:
:Terry Lambert wrote:
:
:> KSE mailing list, starting Monday or so:
:> ] We still haven't heard from jeff with regard to the process
:> ] signal mask removal.
:
:We can add new mailing lists really easily now - it takes about 20-30 seconds.
:Would it be worth
I just wanted to apologize for my poor taste in the subject. It
wasn't really called for.
-gordon
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 01:46:28PM -0800, Gordon Tetlow wrote:
> Just thought I would report it:
>
> lock order reversal
> 1st 0xc61f5940 pcm0 (sound softc) @ /local/usr.src/sys/dev/sound/pci/cmi.c
Terry Lambert wrote:
> KSE mailing list, starting Monday or so:
> ] We still haven't heard from jeff with regard to the process
> ] signal mask removal.
We can add new mailing lists really easily now - it takes about 20-30 seconds.
Would it be worth adding a freebsd-threads and/or freebsd-kse typ
I think it was a libthr linked app after I killed it:
lock order reversal
1st 0xc679d248 process lock (process lock) @ /local/usr.src/sys/kern/kern_exit.
c:134
2nd 0xc05394a0 Giant (Giant) @ /local/usr.src/sys/kern/kern_exit.c:142
Stack backtrace:
backtrace(c04e759f,c05394a0,c04e3f7f,c04e3f7f,c0
Juli Mallett wrote:
> * De: Jeff Roberson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-04-02 ]
> > On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > Also, any ETA on the per process signal mask handing bug in
> > > libthr? Might not be safe to convert everything up front, in
> > > a rush of eager enthusiasm...
>
Jeff Roberson wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Is the disk I/O really that big of an issue? All writes will
> > be on underlying non-blocking descriptors; I guess you are
> > saying that the interleaved I/O is more important, further
> > down the system call interface than the
"Cagle, John (ISS-Houston)" wrote:
> I'm having a problem with -current on a ProLiant BL10e blade server. On
> the blade server, we use a serial console on sio0/COM1. This works
> perfectly with 4.8, but for some reason, the sio driver doesn't see COM1
> at all, and assigns COM2 resources to sio0
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> [ CC list trimmed somewhat ]
>
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Jeff Roberson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Jeff Roberson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Then set the mask to be the same on all threads in the process. The ma
John Baldwin wrote:
> On 02-Apr-2003 Jens Rehsack wrote:
> > I really think splitting the base in some sub-parts would it make much
> > easier to do NO_SENDMAIL on my own. So I had to remove each not required
> > file separately. That's no good solution.
>
> [stepping back a bit ]
>
> I find an
[ CC list trimmed somewhat ]
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Jeff Roberson wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Jeff Roberson wrote:
> > >
> > > Then set the mask to be the same on all threads in the process. The mask
> > > is set in swapcontext though so it seems reason
John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 02-Apr-2003 Terry Lambert wrote:
> > The only way I see for disk I/O to be involved in Mozilla is in
> > local cache? You can turn that off.
>
> Umm, the idea here is to actually make threaded programs
> _useful_. Not to require that you trim their functionality
> dow
On 02-Apr-2003 Terry Lambert wrote:
> The only way I see for disk I/O to be involved in Mozilla is in
> local cache? You can turn that off.
Umm, the idea here is to actually make threaded programs
_useful_. Not to require that you trim their functionality
down before we handle them in a sane wa
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Jeff Roberson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Juli Mallett wrote:
> > >
> > > > * De: Jeff Roberson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-04-02 ]
> > > > [ Subjecte: R
Robert Watson wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Is the disk I/O really that big of an issue? All writes will be on
> > underlying non-blocking descriptors; I guess you are saying that the
> > interleaved I/O is more important, further down the system call
> > interface than the
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Jeff Roberson wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Juli Mallett wrote:
> >
> > > * De: Jeff Roberson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-04-02 ]
> > > [ Subjecte: Re: libthr and 1:1 threading. ]
> > > > On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Terry L
Nate Lawson writes:
> I was testing some changes to make fxp MPSAFE and got a LOR in allocating
> the mbuf cluster and then finally a panic when trying to dereference the
> cluster header. Is the mbuf system MPSAFE? Is it ok to call m_getcl
> with a device lock held (but not Giant)?
>
> T
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Juli Mallett wrote:
>
> > * De: Jeff Roberson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-04-02 ]
> > [ Subjecte: Re: libthr and 1:1 threading. ]
> > > On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > > Also, any ETA on the per process si
On 02-Apr-2003 Terry Lambert wrote:
> Note: This should have been posted to -questions, not -current.
Please read the other replies before sending your own. His sendmail.cf
was empty and the problem was quickly diagnosed and fixed a while ago.
--
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <>< http://
> > > evantd> Sendmail has not been working on my system for some time now. I
> > > evantd> can't say exactly how long, but my guess is that it broke when I
> > > evantd> upgraded to RELENG_5_0. This is how sendmail is invoked (by
> > > evantd> default) and it's output.
> > >
> > > evantd> # sendm
On 2003-04-02 23:28, Dan Naumov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 21:56:40 +0200
>Wilko Bulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 02:29:30PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
>>>
>>> I find an odd situation here whenever this topic comes up. One the
>>> one hand, people are
Terry Lambert wrote:
Jens Rehsack wrote:
John Baldwin wrote:
First, core@ is not the appropriate body for that type of request.
Both current@ and arch@ are much better targets. Second, is
NO_SENDMAIL + the postfix port inadequate?
The problem I see with that is, that even a minimalistic base ins
Note: This should have been posted to -questions, not -current.
Evan Dower wrote:
> Sendmail has not been working on my system for some time now. I can't say
> exactly how long, but my guess is that it broke when I upgraded to
> RELENG_5_0. This is how sendmail is invoked (by default) and it's ou
Peter Schultz wrote:
> Terry Lambert wrote:
> > If you look over the historical cases of this discussion,
> > you'll see that the answer always comes down to "make the
> > system more modular, so people can replace XXX with YYY and
> > quit bothering us; please send patches". 8-) 8-).
>
> Thanks
Just thought I would report it:
lock order reversal
1st 0xc61f5940 pcm0 (sound softc) @ /local/usr.src/sys/dev/sound/pci/cmi.c:520
2nd 0xc6209e80 pcm0:play:0 (pcm channel) @
/local/usr.src/sys/dev/sound/pcm/channel.c:440
Stack backtrace:
backtrace(c04e759f,c6209e80,c61a9b54,c06a2127,c06a21a5) a
Terry Lambert wrote:
leafy wrote:
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 07:38:14AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
Has anyone tried compiling X11 to use libthr?
Someone reported success with KDE, so it should serve as a sign of working X11.
Not X11 clients.
The X11 server.
-- Terry
On 02-Apr-2003 Terry Lambert wrote:
> leafy wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 07:38:14AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
>> > Has anyone tried compiling X11 to use libthr?
>>
>> Someone reported success with KDE, so it should serve as a sign of working X11.
>
> Not X11 clients.
>
> The X11 server.
* De: Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-04-02 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: libthr and 1:1 threading. ]
> leafy wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 07:38:14AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > Has anyone tried compiling X11 to use libthr?
> >
> > Someone reported success with KDE, so it sh
leafy wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 07:38:14AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Has anyone tried compiling X11 to use libthr?
>
> Someone reported success with KDE, so it should serve as a sign of working X11.
Not X11 clients.
The X11 server.
-- Terry
_
Jens Rehsack wrote:
> John Baldwin wrote:
> > First, core@ is not the appropriate body for that type of request.
> > Both current@ and arch@ are much better targets. Second, is
> > NO_SENDMAIL + the postfix port inadequate?
>
> The problem I see with that is, that even a minimalistic base install
On 02-Apr-2003 Dan Naumov wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 21:56:40 +0200
> Wilko Bulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 02:29:30PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
>> >
>> > I find an odd situation here whenever this topic comes up. One the
>> > one hand, people are always wanting
Dan Naumov wrote:
> Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Because syslog is unreliable. See "BUGS" section of the man page.
>
> Don't you think that if syslog is unreliable, then it should be fixed ?
Sure. You should definitely fix it; you'll need to figure out
a way to know whether we've run out of mbufs,
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Jeff Roberson wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Juli Mallett wrote:
>
> > * De: Jeff Roberson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-04-02 ]
> > [ Subjecte: Re: libthr and 1:1 threading. ]
> > > On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > > Also, any ETA on the per process signa
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Juli Mallett wrote:
> * De: Jeff Roberson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-04-02 ]
> [ Subjecte: Re: libthr and 1:1 threading. ]
> > On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > Also, any ETA on the per process signal mask handing bug in
> > > libthr? Might not be sa
Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> On (2003/04/02 07:38), Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Is the disk I/O really that big of an issue? All writes will
> > be on underlying non-blocking descriptors; I guess you are
> > saying that the interleaved I/O is more important, further
> > down the system call interface than
This commit (hopefully) improves the situation when a media is removed
quickly after it appeared. (A number of people have reported this with
USB devices).
There are still a couple of minor races.
Poul-Henning
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Poul-Henning Kamp
writes:
>phk 2003/04/02 1
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Jeff Roberson wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Juli Mallett wrote:
>
> > * De: Jeff Roberson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-04-02 ]
> > [ Subjecte: Re: libthr and 1:1 threading. ]
> > > On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > > Also, any ETA on the per process signal
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 10:26:03AM -0700, Nate Williams wrote:
> > evantd> Sendmail has not been working on my system for some time now. I
> > evantd> can't say exactly how long, but my guess is that it broke when I
> > evantd> upgraded to RELENG_5_0. This is how sendmail is invoked (by
> > evantd>
Terry Lambert wrote:
> Jun Su wrote:
> >
> [ ... 1:1 kernel threads implementation ... ]
> >
> > A benchmark would be interested.
>
> This request doesn't make sense.
>
> The primary performance reasoning behind a 1:1 kernel threading
> implementation, relative to the user space single kernel e
Unfortunately, I don't have too much information here. The scenario is as
follows:
cboss: NFS file/build server
crash2: NFS diskless client
I built world on cboss; I then did installworld in crash2. I intended to
installworld to a DESTDIR on a local disk on crash2, but I failed to mount
it fir
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Juli Mallett wrote:
> * De: Jeff Roberson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-04-02 ]
> [ Subjecte: Re: libthr and 1:1 threading. ]
> > On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > Also, any ETA on the per process signal mask handing bug in
> > > libthr? Might not be safe
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 10:27:04AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Peter Schultz writes:
> : I hope that core will approve removing sendmail from FreeBSD-CURRENT.
>
> Request denied.
>
> 1) you made no case for it: Everybdoy knows this is a contentious
>issue, yet n
Am Mi, 2003-04-02 um 22.28 schrieb Dan Naumov:
> I think being able to update just about ANYTHING, except the kernel
> without the need for a reboot is one of the best features of Linux and
> actual advantages it has over FreeBSD.
I see no real barriers at updating
while running FreeBSD in compar
Dear Hackers,
[ for archive purposes ]
all the USB stack debug traces are available at
http://www.geocities.com/m_evmenkin/usb/
i also managed to get USB dumps from W2K that runs on the same laptop.
http://www.geocities.com/m_evmenkin/usb/USB_HUB.LOG
trace when W2K attach the second hub ins
I was testing some changes to make fxp MPSAFE and got a LOR in allocating
the mbuf cluster and then finally a panic when trying to dereference the
cluster header. Is the mbuf system MPSAFE? Is it ok to call m_getcl
with a device lock held (but not Giant)?
The lock reversal was: 1. fxp softc lock
* De: Jeff Roberson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-04-02 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: libthr and 1:1 threading. ]
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Also, any ETA on the per process signal mask handing bug in
> > libthr? Might not be safe to convert everything up front, in
> > a rush of
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 11:28:53PM +0300, Dan Naumov wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 21:56:40 +0200
> Wilko Bulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 02:29:30PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> > >
> > > I find an odd situation here whenever this topic comes up. One the
> > > one ha
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Robert Watson wrote:
> > You should notice marked interactivity and UI latency improvements with
> > threaded GUI apps over libc_r because GUI threads will generally no longer
> > be blocked when disk I/O and blocking I/O occurs. For example,
> > applica
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 21:56:40 +0200
Wilko Bulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 02:29:30PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> >
> > I find an odd situation here whenever this topic comes up. One the
> > one hand, people are always wanting to split the entire base system
> > up into
I'm having a problem with -current on a ProLiant BL10e blade server. On
the blade server, we use a serial console on sio0/COM1. This works
perfectly with 4.8, but for some reason, the sio driver doesn't see COM1
at all, and assigns COM2 resources to sio0. Any pointers to where I
should look woul
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Dan Naumov wrote:
DN>On Wed, 02 Apr 2003 14:29:30 -0500 (EST)
DN>John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DN>
DN>> I find an odd situation here whenever this topic comes up. One the
DN>> one hand, people are always wanting to split the entire base system
DN>> up into small pack
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 02:29:30PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
...
> [stepping back a bit ]
>
> I find an odd situation here whenever this topic comes up. One the
> one hand, people are always wanting to split the entire base system
> up into small packages for each little piece of the base. O
On Wed, 02 Apr 2003 14:29:30 -0500 (EST)
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find an odd situation here whenever this topic comes up. One the
> one hand, people are always wanting to split the entire base system
> up into small packages for each little piece of the base. On the
> other h
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> Maybe this page could also contain an option to show the list of
> files, and maybe even a "backwards" option to tell which options
> are involved in a particular file or directorys existence.
>
> So, to answer you question: I like it as it is
I tried soliciting ports@ and questions@ for answers to these questions,
but no answers were volunteered which leads me to believe that these
issues may be specific to -current. I'm hoping someone can give me a
clue as to what the problem is or at least give me a pointer (have
searched extensi
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Baldwin writes:
>I find an odd situation here whenever this topic comes up. One the
>one hand, people are always wanting to split the entire base system
>up into small packages for each little piece of the base. On the
>other hand, one of FreeBSD's selling po
On Wed Apr 02, 2003 at 02:29:30PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> > I really think splitting the base in some sub-parts would it make much
> > easier to do NO_SENDMAIL on my own. So I had to remove each not required
> > file separately. That's no good solution.
>
> [stepping back a bit ]
>
> I
On 02-Apr-2003 Jens Rehsack wrote:
> John Baldwin wrote:
>> On 02-Apr-2003 Peter Schultz wrote:
>>
>>>I'm sorry for beating a dead horse. A guy and I from tcbug were just
>>>trying to fix his postfix installation, he does not know what happened,
>>>it just stopped working. There would not hav
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Michael W . Lucas wrote:
> Thank you very much!
Sorry about the breakage.
--
| Matthew N. Dodd | '78 Datsun 280Z | '75 Volvo 164E | FreeBSD/NetBSD |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 2 x '84 Volvo 245DL| ix86,sparc,pmax |
| http://www.jurai.net/~winter | For Great Justic
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
