Re: FreeBSD head -r341836 amd64->aarch64 cross-build of -r484783 ports via poudriere: devel/qt5-testlib hung-up during "Checking for POSIX monotonic clock"

[I attached to the hung-up process with gdb and looked around a little.] On 2018-Dec-19, at 13:58, Mark Millard wrote: > [Looks like a race or some such for devel/qt5-testlib: retry of > poudreire-devel > did not hang. The other hang-up seems to be repeating and I give some > details.] > > On

Re: The future of ZFS in FreeBSD

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 15:11 Steven Hartland wrote: > Sorry been off for a few weeks so must have missed that, please do prod me > on again if you don’t see any response to anything not just this. Like many > others I get so may emails across so many lists it’s more than likely I > just missed i

Re: The future of ZFS in FreeBSD

Sorry been off for a few weeks so must have missed that, please do prod me on again if you don’t see any response to anything not just this. Like many others I get so may emails across so many lists it’s more than likely I just missed it. That said would you say that with the right support we can

Re: The future of ZFS in FreeBSD

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 14:47 Steven Hartland wrote: > Thanks for the write up most appreciated. One of the more meaty > differences is that FreeBSD ZFS still has the only merged and production > ready TRIM support so my question would be are their any plans to address > this before creating the

Re: The future of ZFS in FreeBSD

Thanks for the write up most appreciated. One of the more meaty differences is that FreeBSD ZFS still has the only merged and production ready TRIM support so my question would be are their any plans to address this before creating the new port as going back to a world without TRIM support wouldn’t

Re: FreeBSD head -r341836 amd64->aarch64 cross-build of -r484783 ports via poudriere: devel/qt5-testlib hung-up during "Checking for POSIX monotonic clock"

[Looks like a race or some such for devel/qt5-testlib: retry of poudreire-devel did not hang. The other hang-up seems to be repeating and I give some details.] On 2018-Dec-19, at 12:20, Mark Millard wrote: > FYI: Based on FreeBSD head -r341836 (host and target) and ports -r484783 . > This > was

FreeBSD head -r341836 amd64->aarch64 cross-build of -r484783 ports via poudriere: devel/qt5-testlib hung-up during "Checking for POSIX monotonic clock"

FYI: Based on FreeBSD head -r341836 (host and target) and ports -r484783 . This was a rebuild based on going from perl5.26 to perl5.28 without updating the ports tree and from system clang 6 for the prior FreeBSD-head context used to clang 7 this time. (I'm not attributing causes here.) poudriere

Re: Composite PCI devices in FreeBSD (mfd in Linux)

On Wed, 2018-12-19 at 14:35 -0500, Anthony Jenkins wrote: > On 12/19/18 10:41 AM, Anthony Jenkins wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > I'm not feeling too confident about the condition of the FreeBSD > > ig4  > > driver; the PCI attach code was calling pci_alloc_msi() wrong, > > passing  > > a pointer t

Re: Composite PCI devices in FreeBSD (mfd in Linux)

On 12/19/18 10:41 AM, Anthony Jenkins wrote: [snip] I'm not feeling too confident about the condition of the FreeBSD ig4 driver; the PCI attach code was calling pci_alloc_msi() wrong, passing a pointer to the rid (0) instead of a pointer to a count variable, and not passing bus_alloc_resource

Re: The future of ZFS in FreeBSD

On 12/19/18 10:32 AM, Allan Jude wrote: The biggest thing to remember is that this is still OpenZFS, and still run by the same developers as it has been. We are just commonizing on the repo that has the most features integrated into it. thanks for the clarification on this, as i was a bit c

Re: The future of ZFS in FreeBSD

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 8:35 AM Shawn Webb wrote: > I'm curious what this means for OpenZFS. > OpenZFS will continue to be an umbrella project for coordinating all work on open-source ZFS. The primary activities of OpenZFS are the annual OpenZFS Developer Summit

Re: The future of ZFS in FreeBSD

On 2018-12-19 11:30, Shawn Webb wrote: > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 10:49:48PM -0800, Matthew Macy wrote: >> The sources for FreeBSD's ZFS support are currently taken directly >> from Illumos with local ifdefs to support the peculiarities of FreeBSD >> where the Solaris Portability Layer (SPL) shims f

Re: The future of ZFS in FreeBSD

> On 19 Dec 2018, at 08:35, Matthew Macy wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:49 PM Enji Cooper > wrote: >> >> Hello Matthew, >> >> I appreciate the long write up, as someone who still uses FreeBSD ZFS on my >> NAS box and knowing some of the history with ZFS

Re: The future of ZFS in FreeBSD

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 10:49:48PM -0800, Matthew Macy wrote: > The sources for FreeBSD's ZFS support are currently taken directly > from Illumos with local ifdefs to support the peculiarities of FreeBSD > where the Solaris Portability Layer (SPL) shims fall short. FreeBSD > has regularly pulled ch

Re: Composite PCI devices in FreeBSD (mfd in Linux)

On 12/10/18 3:57 PM, John Baldwin wrote: On 12/10/18 12:19 PM, Ian Lepore wrote: On Mon, 2018-12-10 at 14:42 -0500, Anthony Jenkins wrote: On 12/10/18 1:26 PM, John Baldwin wrote: On 12/10/18 9:00 AM, Anthony Jenkins wrote: Hi all, I'm trying to port an Intel PCI I2C controller from Linux

Re: possible POLA violation for NFS server to make it Linux compatible

In message , Conrad Meyer writes: > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 5:07 PM Rick Macklem wrote: > > The change to make the FreeBSD NFSv4 server use vfs.nfsd.nfs_privport is tr > ivial > > and I think being compatible with Linux is important (I see it as the defac > to > > standard NFS implementation thes

Re: The future of ZFS in FreeBSD

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:49 PM Enji Cooper wrote: > > Hello Matthew, > > I appreciate the long write up, as someone who still uses FreeBSD ZFS on my > NAS box and knowing some of the history with ZFS on *Solaris, etc. Something > like this was bound to happen with post the Oracle buyout. > > >