on 07/04/2011 13:59 Alexander Motin said the following:
> Any objections? Or SCSI/IDE there expected to mean command set?
>
Sorry for saying something potentially stupid, but... do we actually have any
reason to make that distinction from any practical point?
--
Andriy Gapon
___
on 07/04/2011 23:00 Jung-uk Kim said the following:
> Although it looks okay, please don't commit it just yet. I am working
> in this area actively. Also, if the Intel's claim is true, i.e.,
> TSCs reset to zero when APs start, we cannot use TSC as a timecounter
> hardware until all APs are st
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Alexander Best wrote:
> On Thu Apr 7 11, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Alexander Best
>> > wrote:
>> >> hi there,
>> >>
>> >> i'd like to propose adding -Wmissing-include-dirs
On Thu Apr 7 11, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Alexander Best wrote:
> >> hi there,
> >>
> >> i'd like to propose adding -Wmissing-include-dirs to CWARNFLAGS. this will
> >> let
> >> tinderbox fail, if any new
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Alexander Best wrote:
>> hi there,
>>
>> i'd like to propose adding -Wmissing-include-dirs to CWARNFLAGS. this will
>> let
>> tinderbox fail, if any new kernel code was committed with (a) broken include
>> d
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Alexander Best wrote:
> hi there,
>
> i'd like to propose adding -Wmissing-include-dirs to CWARNFLAGS. this will let
> tinderbox fail, if any new kernel code was committed with (a) broken include
> dir(s).
>
> i ran a test via
>
> make toolchains
> make MAKE_JUST_K
On 4/7/11 10:12 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
Guys,
what do you think about the following change?
The idea is mark TSC as the best timecounter when it's invariant and
synchronized
between cores.
Unfortunately I don't have code to auto-detect the synchronization and keep
relying on the corresponding t
On Thursday 07 April 2011 01:12 pm, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> Guys,
>
> what do you think about the following change?
> The idea is mark TSC as the best timecounter when it's invariant
> and synchronized between cores. Unfortunately I don't have code to
> auto-detect the synchronization and keep relyin
Hi--
On Apr 7, 2011, at 10:12 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> what do you think about the following change?
> The idea is mark TSC as the best timecounter when it's invariant and
> synchronized
> between cores.
> Unfortunately I don't have code to auto-detect the synchronization and keep
> relying on t
hi there,
i'd like to propose adding -Wmissing-include-dirs to CWARNFLAGS. this will let
tinderbox fail, if any new kernel code was committed with (a) broken include
dir(s).
i ran a test via
make toolchains
make MAKE_JUST_KERNELS=yes tinderbox
and nothing seemed to go wrong with the extra warni
Guys,
what do you think about the following change?
The idea is mark TSC as the best timecounter when it's invariant and
synchronized
between cores.
Unfortunately I don't have code to auto-detect the synchronization and keep
relying on the corresponding tunable. I thought about auto-setting it
Alexander Best wrote:
> On Fri Apr 1 11, John Baldwin wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 31, 2011 6:33:39 pm Alexander Best wrote:
>>> i think there are multiple issues with devstat. i found the following in
>>> devicestat.h:
...
>>> funny thing is i found the following in scsi_pass.c:
>>>
>>>
12 matches
Mail list logo
