Kazutaka YOKOTA scribbled this message on Jul 24:
>
> >> I am afraid this is not quite right.
> >>
> >> Bruce, Doug and I are currently in discussion to fix this.
> >
> >Hrm. Why does the AXP cons.c track udev_t while the x86 verson
> >doesn't? As best as I can tell, the AXP doesn't seem to ne
>> I am afraid this is not quite right.
>>
>> Bruce, Doug and I are currently in discussion to fix this.
>
>Hrm. Why does the AXP cons.c track udev_t while the x86 verson
>doesn't? As best as I can tell, the AXP doesn't seem to need it any
>more than the x86 does, unless I've missed something.
Kazutaka YOKOTA wrote in message ID
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Does this look right? Without this patch, my AXP was memory faulting
> >every time it booted, in the dev2udev routine.
>
> I am afraid this is not quite right.
>
> Bruce, Doug and I are currently in discussion to fix this.
Hrm. Wh
Yes, looks right.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Gary Palmer" writes:
>
>Does this look right? Without this patch, my AXP was memory faulting
>every time it booted, in the dev2udev routine.
>
>Thanks
>
>
>Index: alpha/alpha/cons.c
>=
>Does this look right? Without this patch, my AXP was memory faulting
>every time it booted, in the dev2udev routine.
I am afraid this is not quite right.
Bruce, Doug and I are currently in discussion to fix this.
Kazu
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freeb
Does this look right? Without this patch, my AXP was memory faulting
every time it booted, in the dev2udev routine.
Thanks
Index: alpha/alpha/cons.c
===
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/alpha/alpha/cons.c,v
retrieving revision 1.11
d
