Re: rc.d/sshd reload test

2012-11-27 Thread Antoine Jacoutot
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 08:28:10AM +0100, Alexander Hall wrote: > Make sure new config is valid before SIGHUP'ing sshd, which would > otherwise just kill it. Invalid configuration now gives: > > # pgrep sshd > 18998 > # /etc/rc.d/sshd reload > sshd(failed) > # pgrep sshd > 18998 > > Pros: Less

rc.d/sshd reload test

2012-11-27 Thread Alexander Hall
Make sure new config is valid before SIGHUP'ing sshd, which would otherwise just kill it. Invalid configuration now gives: # pgrep sshd 18998 # /etc/rc.d/sshd reload sshd(failed) # pgrep sshd 18998 Pros: Less risk of accidentally killing sshd and locking yourself out. Cons: You may think that y

Re: set ifp->if_baudrate with IF_Gbps() / IF_Mbps()

2012-11-27 Thread Brad Smith
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 10:24:00PM -0500, Brad Smith wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:57:50AM -0200, Gleydson Soares wrote: > > set ifp->if_baudrate with IF_Gbps() / IF_Mbps(). > > > > OK ? > > Although it has already been commited its the wrong direction to go in. > These should be removed as

Re: hostname.if(5) clarification

2012-11-27 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2012/11/27 23:50, Alexander Hall wrote: > IIRC, isn't there a few distinct (non-ifconfig-compatible) cases we > handle specially, yes, but it's the important ones: inet and inet6. inet by itself is pretty easy, it's the default anyway so you can just write "11.22.33.44/28" directly in hostname

Re: hostname.if(5) clarification

2012-11-27 Thread Alexander Hall
On 11/27/12 16:20, Christian Weisgerber wrote: Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2012/11/26 22:24, Christian Weisgerber wrote: [...] After some further reflection, I think I agree with sthen. I am "mostly" happy with hostname.if, but I would find it useful to have a nicer syntax that allows ignor

Re: rtsock: filter out unwanted rt flags

2012-11-27 Thread Mike Belopuhov
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Claudio Jeker wrote: > Hi, > > There are two flags which are not used or only used by the kernel > (outgoing to userland). When userlands sends rt messages with these flags > they do no harm but show up in route(8) and netstat(1). IMO we should > scrub those flags

rtsock: filter out unwanted rt flags

2012-11-27 Thread Claudio Jeker
Hi, There are two flags which are not used or only used by the kernel (outgoing to userland). When userlands sends rt messages with these flags they do no harm but show up in route(8) and netstat(1). IMO we should scrub those flags out since they will just confuse people. OK? -- :wq Claudio Ind

Re: clonable bpf

2012-11-27 Thread Mike Belopuhov
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 22:17 +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote: > apparently it works just fine. the number of clones is limited > by the v_specbitmap which currently allows for 64 clones total > (per system, not per process). > > apply the diff and see how all your apps are happily using single > dev

clonable bpf

2012-11-27 Thread Mike Belopuhov
apparently it works just fine. the number of clones is limited by the v_specbitmap which currently allows for 64 clones total (per system, not per process). apply the diff and see how all your apps are happily using single device node: /dev/bpf0. thanks to pedro and thib for the spec_open_clone

Re: raw_usrreq - spl diff

2012-11-27 Thread Mike Belopuhov
As you might have already noticed, the diff was committed. Thanks! On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 8:34 PM, David Hill wrote: > Any thoughts? > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 02:18:35PM -0500, David Hill wrote: >>Hello - >> >>I originally asked mikeb if splnet was needed in net/pfkey.c. He added >>onto my di

Re: hostname.if(5) clarification

2012-11-27 Thread Marco S Hyman
> To pass a line directly to ifconfig and prevent it from being >> interpreted as a packed format, use !ifconfig \$if ." > > Yes. > >> (I think I may change my files to "!ifconfig ..." format >> now, it's ugly but it will avoid errors; not least because >> then I can use /prefix notation

Re: hostname.if(5) clarification

2012-11-27 Thread Christian Weisgerber
Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2012/11/26 22:24, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > [...] After some further reflection, I think I agree with sthen. > I am "mostly" happy with hostname.if, but I would find it useful > to have a nicer syntax that allows ignoring other parsing and > feeds the line direc

PMAP_NOCACHE -> PMAP_NC

2012-11-27 Thread Martin Pieuchot
While working on drm support for macppc that makes use of non-cached memory I found that some platforms (amd64, i386, powerpc) use the MD PMAP_NOCACHE flag where others (sparc, sparc64, solbourne) use PMAP_NC for the same purpose. Because I'd like to use this flag in the drm code and for coherency

Re: X540T: link is not detected

2012-11-27 Thread mxb
There is however, no problem then: plugged -> boot -> wait -> unplug -> wait -> plug in. On 27 nov 2012, at 13:50, mxb wrote: > > Hi tech@, > > ix(4) does not detects link then cable is plugged in into already running > machine. > > ix0: > flags=28b43 > mtu 1500 >lladdr bc:30:5b:f

X540T: link is not detected

2012-11-27 Thread mxb
Hi tech@, ix(4) does not detects link then cable is plugged in into already running machine. ix0: flags=28b43 mtu 1500 lladdr bc:30:5b:f3:60:10 description: HW_EXT priority: 0 media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT full-duplex) status: active inet

Re: hostname.if(5) clarification

2012-11-27 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2012/11/26 22:24, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > Mark Kettenis: > > > I don't really see what this buys us. You still have to maintain the > > backwards compat code. You'll end up with an inconsistent mess of > > hostname.if and if.whatever files. And all of this to fix what exactly? > > To

Re: hostname.if(5) clarification

2012-11-27 Thread Jiri B
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:25:39AM +0200, Gregory Edigarov wrote: > On 11/27/2012 09:03 AM, Claudio Jeker wrote: > >On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:36:20PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: > If there are desires to improve this (I hear Naddy grumbling!) then the > stomach to break backwards compat mu

Re: hostname.if(5) clarification

2012-11-27 Thread Christiano F. Haesbaert
On 26 November 2012 22:06, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2012/11/26 17:40, Jason McIntyre wrote: >> anyway...i still dislike the idea of just saying order matters. also, >> could someone really expect the file to not be parsed top down > > Yes, I think they might; people are used to config files be

Re: hostname.if(5) clarification

2012-11-27 Thread Franco Fichtner
On Nov 26, 2012, at 9:44 PM, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > Todd T. Fries wrote: > >> If there are desires to improve this (I hear Naddy grumbling!) then the >> stomach to break backwards compat must be present, or suggestions on how >> to do it without breaking backwards compat must be suggeste

Re: sqlite3 3.7.14.1

2012-11-27 Thread Antoine Jacoutot
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 09:44:47AM +0100, Marc Espie wrote: > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 07:59:29AM +0100, Landry Breuil wrote: > > Hi, > > > > here's a 250k diff to update our base sqlite3 to the latest 3.7.14.1 : > > http://rhaalovely.net/~landry/shared/sqlite-3.7.14.1.diff > > I hope i got the dif

Re: sqlite3 3.7.14.1

2012-11-27 Thread Marc Espie
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 07:59:29AM +0100, Landry Breuil wrote: > Hi, > > here's a 250k diff to update our base sqlite3 to the latest 3.7.14.1 : > http://rhaalovely.net/~landry/shared/sqlite-3.7.14.1.diff > I hope i got the diff right, iirc no local modifications were made to > the actual code. I'

Re: hostname.if(5) clarification

2012-11-27 Thread Gregory Edigarov
On 11/27/2012 09:03 AM, Claudio Jeker wrote: On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:36:20PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: If there are desires to improve this (I hear Naddy grumbling!) then the stomach to break backwards compat must be present, or suggestions on how to do it without breaking backwards compat