On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 10:19:12PM -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>
> If you can provide the source for the application you're running
> above and instructions on how to compile it, I can at least give you a
> bit of a head start :).
> Thanks,
> -Garrett
The app is statically linked. I can give
On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 10:24:12PM -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>
> But couldn't it be libthr changes? There have been a handful of
> those that have been committed recently by davidxu.
> HTH,
There is no threading involved in the application. However,
it was David's recent changes that caus
On 12/5/10 10:24 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 12/5/10 10:19 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 10:12 PM, Steve Kargl
wrote:
On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 04:00:32PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 12/5/10 3:18 PM, Steve Kar
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 12/5/10 10:19 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 10:12 PM, Steve Kargl
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 04:00:32PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 12/5/10 3:18 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
>
>
On 12/5/10 10:19 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 10:12 PM, Steve Kargl
wrote:
On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 04:00:32PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 12/5/10 3:18 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
Sometime in the last 7-10 days, some one made a
change that has broken process accounting/tim
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 10:12 PM, Steve Kargl
wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 04:00:32PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
>> On 12/5/10 3:18 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
>> >Sometime in the last 7-10 days, some one made a
>> >change that has broken process accounting/timing.
>> >
>> >laptop:kargl[42] forea
On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 04:00:32PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 12/5/10 3:18 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> >Sometime in the last 7-10 days, some one made a
> >change that has broken process accounting/timing.
> >
> >laptop:kargl[42] foreach i ( 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 )
> >foreach? time ./testf
> >for
FreeBSD gohorns.x 9.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 9.0-CURRENT #1 r216088: Thu Dec 2
23:20:14 CST 2010 r...@gohorns.x:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
I have been getting a lot of ts_to_ct for months: are we supposed to
look for something or report anything about these?
I just noticed an NTP error in
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 05/12/2010 22:30 Julian Elischer said the following:
>> On 12/5/10 9:30 AM, Bernd Walter wrote:
>>> On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 12:14:21PM -0500, Pierre Lamy wrote:
Just curious about why the in-kernel PPPoE interface was never ported
Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> as I never got around to installing mpd and it "did the job".
> BTW, there is a rumor that mpd may become an 'in source' program too.
Not to paraphrase the muppet show, but...
'the question is... who cares?' :>
--
This e-mail was sponsored by the letters 'please GTFO with
On 12/5/10 3:18 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
Sometime in the last 7-10 days, some one made a
change that has broken process accounting/timing.
laptop:kargl[42] foreach i ( 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 )
foreach? time ./testf
foreach? end
Max ULP: 0.501607 for x in [-18.00:88.70] with dx = 1.067100e-04
on 05/12/2010 22:30 Julian Elischer said the following:
> On 12/5/10 9:30 AM, Bernd Walter wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 12:14:21PM -0500, Pierre Lamy wrote:
>>> Just curious about why the in-kernel PPPoE interface was never ported
>>> from NetBSD or OpenBSD, to FreeBSD. Does anyone know why?
>
Sometime in the last 7-10 days, some one made a
change that has broken process accounting/timing.
laptop:kargl[42] foreach i ( 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 )
foreach? time ./testf
foreach? end
Max ULP: 0.501607 for x in [-18.00:88.70] with dx = 1.067100e-04
69.55 real38.39 user
On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 12:30:16PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 12/5/10 9:30 AM, Bernd Walter wrote:
> >On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 12:14:21PM -0500, Pierre Lamy wrote:
> >>Just curious about why the in-kernel PPPoE interface was never ported
> >>from NetBSD or OpenBSD, to FreeBSD. Does anyone kn
On 12/5/10 9:30 AM, Bernd Walter wrote:
On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 12:14:21PM -0500, Pierre Lamy wrote:
Just curious about why the in-kernel PPPoE interface was never ported
from NetBSD or OpenBSD, to FreeBSD. Does anyone know why?
Maybe because everyone who cares about in-kernel uses the FreeBSD
On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 09:34:46AM +0100, Bernhard Schmidt wrote:
> On Sunday 05 December 2010 07:21:03 Steve Kargl wrote:
> > It seems some recent change (as in the last 7-10 days)
> > has caused an instability in wlan0. Just a small
> > excerpt from /var/log/messages,
> >
> > Dec 4 18:54:16 la
Pierre Lamy wrote:
> Just curious about why the in-kernel PPPoE interface was never ported
> from NetBSD or OpenBSD, to FreeBSD. Does anyone know why?
> From using it for a long time in OpenBSD I always found it quite stable
> and easy to use.
Have you tried netgraph-based mpd?
__
On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 12:14:21PM -0500, Pierre Lamy wrote:
> Just curious about why the in-kernel PPPoE interface was never ported
> from NetBSD or OpenBSD, to FreeBSD. Does anyone know why?
Maybe because everyone who cares about in-kernel uses the FreeBSD
in-kernel ng_pppoe via mpd?
> From us
Just curious about why the in-kernel PPPoE interface was never ported
from NetBSD or OpenBSD, to FreeBSD. Does anyone know why?
From using it for a long time in OpenBSD I always found it quite stable
and easy to use.
-Pierre
___
freebsd-current@fr
On Sunday 05 December 2010 07:21:03 Steve Kargl wrote:
> It seems some recent change (as in the last 7-10 days)
> has caused an instability in wlan0. Just a small
> excerpt from /var/log/messages,
>
> Dec 4 18:54:16 laptop kernel: wlan0: link state changed to UP
> Dec 4 19:11:16 laptop kernel:
20 matches
Mail list logo
