On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 06:55:55PM +0300, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> could someone please enlighten me how this uvm_pseg_get is supposed
> to work?
>
> uvm_pseg_get
> mtx_enter(&uvm_pseg_lck);
> `-> uvm_pseg_init
> `-> uvm_km_valloc
> `-> uvm_km_valloc_align
> `-> uvm_map
>
Hi all,
could someone please enlighten me how this uvm_pseg_get is supposed
to work?
uvm_pseg_get
mtx_enter(&uvm_pseg_lck);
`-> uvm_pseg_init
`-> uvm_km_valloc
`-> uvm_km_valloc_align
`-> uvm_map
`-> vm_map_lock <-- sleeping lock
Debugger(10,d73eeeac,d03e0
a twatter?
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 03:27:55AM -0200, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote:
> I'm sorry for that, I made the account quickly to make a joke with ,
> just pressed next next next and didn't notice tech@openbsd.org was on
> the "friends suggestions". My sincere apologies.
>
> I'm such a tool
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 17:53 -0700, kj...@pintday.org wrote:
> > Also, it makes more sense to have a R[456]RS-compliant version than
> > just any or "tiny".
>
> Define sense.
>
so that you know what this implementation supports and
you don't have to look into its source code to figure
that out.
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 03:25:21AM -0500, Daniel Dickman wrote:
>
> > Note: the patch below is NOT recommended for 4.7 as this will change
> > the semantics of fts_open and will BREAK things like "gzip -" and
> > possibly other stuff.
> >
> > Calls to
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 03:25:21AM -0500, Daniel Dickman wrote:
> Note: the patch below is NOT recommended for 4.7 as this will change
> the semantics of fts_open and will BREAK things like "gzip -" and
> possibly other stuff.
>
> Calls to fts_open should probably be audited first...
yes, this i
Note: the patch below is NOT recommended for 4.7 as this will change
the semantics of fts_open and will BREAK things like "gzip -" and
possibly other stuff.
Calls to fts_open should probably be audited first...
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:06 AM, Daniel Dickman wrote:
> As reported on the git mail
