Re: mention vdrop in vhold.9

2012-09-16 Thread Jason McIntyre
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 08:08:48PM +0200, Michal Mazurek wrote: > Taken from FreeBSD. > an altered version of your diff was committed. thanks for the mail, jmc

Re: mention vdrop in vhold.9

2012-09-16 Thread Philip Guenther
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Jason McIntyre wrote: > just spotted that the name description (Nd) for this file is now out of > date. updated accordingly (from freebsd). > > ok? Ship it! guenther@

Re: mention vdrop in vhold.9

2012-09-16 Thread Jason McIntyre
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 10:54:40AM +0059, Jason McIntyre wrote: > > thanks, i think that reads better too. ok? > jmc > just spotted that the name description (Nd) for this file is now out of date. updated accordingly (from freebsd). ok? jmc Index: Makefile =

allow amd64 to boot from CONCAT softraid volumes

2012-09-16 Thread Stefan Sperling
This is very similar to booting from RAID1, except we only try the first chunk in the set. Tested with qemu-system-x86_64, using two disk images (-hda and -hdb parameters, and "-cdrom cd52.iso -boot d" to boot from cdrom). The softraid disk must be created manually during installation. At the "in

Re: missing description for strtod(3)

2012-09-16 Thread Jason McIntyre
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:20:21PM +0200, Michal Mazurek wrote: > strtod also accepts NAN, NAN(xxx) and INF as legal values. Missing part taken > from FreeBSD, except that the documentation ommited "INF" and mentioned only > "INFINITY". > fixed now by martynas. jmc > Index: strtod.3 > ==

Re: missing argument in vaccess.9

2012-09-16 Thread Jason McIntyre
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 07:18:11PM +0200, Michal Mazurek wrote: > vaccess()' first argument is type. > fixed, thanks. jmc > Index: vaccess.9 > === > RCS file: /cvs/src/share/man/man9/vaccess.9,v > retrieving revision 1.7 > diff -u -

Re: mention vdrop in vhold.9

2012-09-16 Thread Jason McIntyre
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 07:26:40PM -0700, Philip Guenther wrote: > On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 1:42 AM, Jason McIntyre wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 10:19:35AM +0200, Michal Mazurek wrote: > >> > doesn;t the code mean the check is for zero, not "less than or equal to > >> > zero"? > >> > >> Oops,