Re: limit the number of cpus amd64 will attach to the number of cpuinfo slots we have

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 06:04:23PM -0500, Kenneth R Westerback wrote: > Index: amd64/cpu.c > === > RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/arch/amd64/amd64/cpu.c,v > retrieving revision 1.38 > diff -u -p -r1.38 cpu.c > --- amd64/cpu.c 13 Nov 2010

Re: limit the number of cpus amd64 will attach to the number of cpuinfo slots we have

On 26/11/2010, at 9:04 AM, Kenneth R Westerback wrote: > On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 02:13:35PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: >>> From: David Gwynne >>> >>> without this diff this box panics on boot while attaching the 36th >>> cpu. its a buffer overrun... >>> >>> analysis done by kettenis. >>> >>>

Re: limit the number of cpus amd64 will attach to the number of cpuinfo slots we have

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 02:13:35PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 23:07:45 +1000 > > From: David Gwynne > > X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.62 on 220.110.80.83 > > List-Owner: > > X-Loop: tech@openbsd.org > > Sender: owner-t...@openbsd.org > > X-X

Re: convert netisr to real softinterrupt

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:23:42PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 12:30:39 + > > From: Owain Ainsworth > > > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:50:06AM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 05:42:59PM +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2

small comment typo in lib/libc/stdlib/bsearch.c

Hi, I know a one-character typo in a comment is not important, but here is the diff anyway: Index: lib/libc/stdlib/bsearch.c === RCS file: /home/carlos/cvs/src/lib/libc/stdlib/bsearch.c,v retrieving revision 1.6 diff -u -r1.6 bsearc

Re: convert netisr to real softinterrupt

> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 12:30:39 + > From: Owain Ainsworth > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:50:06AM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 05:42:59PM +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 17:06 +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote: > > > > This diff was made by oga@

Re: mandoc ZN support

Hi Joerg & Ted, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote on Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 02:49:32AM +0100: > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 08:17:16PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote: >> patch below adds "support" for ZN. i think. i'm not totally sure >> what it does, but it makes the words after .ZN show up when i view >> the page

Re: convert netisr to real softinterrupt

* Claudio Jeker [2010-11-25 17:04]: > I doubt that there is a measurable performance difference on > i386/amd64. yeah, well, "doubt". pls run a quick test. -- Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Servi

Re: convert netisr to real softinterrupt

* Owain Ainsworth [2010-11-25 14:26]: > I also recall asking you (or someone with the right setup) to please do > that verification, request still stands :). the last word on this was that you'd run them with remote access to my test setup be assured i had long run it if i had found the time --

Re: convert netisr to real softinterrupt

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 12:30:39PM +, Owain Ainsworth wrote: > On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:50:06AM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 05:42:59PM +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 17:06 +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote: > > > > This diff was made by oga@ so

Re: More Canon scanners (usbdevs, uscanner.c)

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Just nuke it. It'll be sitting in the attick if anybody wants it back. > Ok, here is a proposed diff that can also be found at: http://www.brimbelle.org/mattieu/stuff/uscanner.diff Compile tested on amd64. Index: sys/dev/usb/uscanner.

Re: systat and livelocks

> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 15:31:38 +0100 > From: Claudio Jeker > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 02:57:56PM +0100, Jasper Lievisse Adriaanse wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Currently the 'mbufs' view of systat only shows the difference of livelocks, > > this diff also adds the actual total (or sum). This is inf

Re: systat and livelocks

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 02:57:56PM +0100, Jasper Lievisse Adriaanse wrote: > Hi, > > Currently the 'mbufs' view of systat only shows the difference of livelocks, > this diff also adds the actual total (or sum). This is info most people are > actually looking for anyway (as noticed by kettenis and

Re: more usb detach love

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 12:45:10PM +, Kevin Chadwick wrote: > On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:59:22 + > Jacob Meuser wrote: > > > thoughts? > > Probably not the thoughts your after especially on tech, but some of the > panics I was seeing a while back (keep meaning to run more recent and > proper

systat and livelocks

Hi, Currently the 'mbufs' view of systat only shows the difference of livelocks, this diff also adds the actual total (or sum). This is info most people are actually looking for anyway (as noticed by kettenis and sthen yesterday). OK? -- Cheers, Jasper "Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish." Index: mbuf

Re: More Canon scanners (usbdevs, uscanner.c)

> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:30:22 + > From: Stuart Henderson > > On 2010/11/24 19:06, Antoine Jacoutot wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Nov 2010, Miod Vallat wrote: > > > > > > But is there any reason to keep these devices in uscanner? To my > > > > knowledge, sane is the only tool to access such devic

Re: convert netisr to real softinterrupt

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 01:41:00PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote: > * Owain Ainsworth [2010-11-25 13:33]: > > and significantly faster (I did not check this). > > I really want to see a verification that this doesn't slow us down > before it goes in. > > and no, sorry, "shouldn't be slower" is not

Re: limit the number of cpus amd64 will attach to the number of cpuinfo slots we have

> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 23:07:45 +1000 > From: David Gwynne > X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.62 on 220.110.80.83 > List-Owner: > X-Loop: tech@openbsd.org > Sender: owner-t...@openbsd.org > X-XS4ALL-DNSBL-Checked: mxdrop234.xs4all.nl checked 192.43.244.163 against > DN

Re: more usb detach love

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:59:22 + Jacob Meuser wrote: > thoughts? Probably not the thoughts your after especially on tech, but some of the panics I was seeing a while back (keep meaning to run more recent and proper tests with output, but time is short at the mo) would occur just after device r

Une vidéo intéressante

Avez-vous pensC) C une vidC)o pour augmenter votre visibilitC) ?Donnez-vous une chance d'apparaC.tre en 1C(re page de Google. Quelques exemples, tous rC)alisC)s C des budgets de moins de 990 euros* : EXEMPLE PRC SENTATION D'ENTREPRISES EXEMPLE PRODUIT / SERVICE... EXEMPLE ACCUE

Re: convert netisr to real softinterrupt

* Owain Ainsworth [2010-11-25 13:33]: > and significantly faster (I did not check this). I really want to see a verification that this doesn't slow us down before it goes in. and no, sorry, "shouldn't be slower" is not good enough. -- Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org BS Web Se

Re: convert netisr to real softinterrupt

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:50:06AM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote: > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 05:42:59PM +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 17:06 +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote: > > > This diff was made by oga@ some time ago -- I just fixed a few conflicts > > > and I would really like

Re: convert netisr to real softinterrupt

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Claudio Jeker wrote: > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 05:42:59PM +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 17:06 +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote: >> > This diff was made by oga@ some time ago -- I just fixed a few conflicts >> > and I would really like to see th

Re: convert netisr to real softinterrupt

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 05:42:59PM +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote: > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 17:06 +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote: > > This diff was made by oga@ some time ago -- I just fixed a few conflicts > > and I would really like to see this going in. > > > > netisr needs to be made a normal C func