Re: sgi: enable 24-bit audio on mavb(4) devices

2013-06-20 Thread Tobias Ulmer
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 01:40:55PM +0200, Alexandre Ratchov wrote: > This is a small diff to enable mavb(4) 24-bit native format. To > test it, first check that audio works without the diff. Then, apply > the diff, kill sndiod, and run it as: > > sndiod -dd -e s24be4lsb > > then play any au

Typo in usr.bin/make/compat.c

2013-06-20 Thread Caspar Schutijser
Hi tech@, I found a typo in usr.bin/make/compat.c. The patch is below. Best regards, Caspar Schutijser Index: compat.c === RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/make/compat.c,v retrieving revision 1.82 diff -u -r1.82 compat.c --- compat.c

Re: bge diff needs testing

2013-06-20 Thread Rob Sessink
> I've got test report for the BCM5723/BCM5784. It would be > great if someone with a 5703 or 5704 could try this. Hoi Mike, Over the weekend I would be able to test this on a HP DL360 G3 with 5703. Regards Rob

Re: help X11 performance: make sigprocmask(2) SY_NOLOCK

2013-06-20 Thread Martin Pelikan
> And p_sigmask is copied during fork, so that needs a bit of thought. > I guess it doesn't matter for the new child, as it isn't running yet > and therefore can't invoke sigprocmask(2). And the parent should be > safe as well, as it is in fork(2) and therefore can't call > sigprocmask(2) either.

Re: help X11 performance: make sigprocmask(2) SY_NOLOCK

2013-06-20 Thread Martin Pelikan
> > I'm only asking if such a situation can happen, or if there is some > > ensure_this_assignment_is_always_atomic(&p->p_sigmask, mask); function > > that I missed. > > There isn't one. Unfortunately, we might need one to support SMP on > hppa, where we have the emulate atomic operations using a

Re: help X11 performance: make sigprocmask(2) SY_NOLOCK

2013-06-20 Thread Paul Irofti
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 02:01:26PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:25:49 +0300 > > From: Paul Irofti > > > > > + bs &= ~sigcantmask; > > > switch (SCARG(uap, how)) { > > > case LINUX_SIG_BLOCK: > > > - p->p_sigmask |= bs & ~sigcantmask; > > > + atomic

Re: help X11 performance: make sigprocmask(2) SY_NOLOCK

2013-06-20 Thread Mark Kettenis
> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:25:49 +0300 > From: Paul Irofti > > > + bs &= ~sigcantmask; > > switch (SCARG(uap, how)) { > > case LINUX_SIG_BLOCK: > > - p->p_sigmask |= bs & ~sigcantmask; > > + atomic_setbits_int(&p->p_sigmask, bs); > > break; > > > >

Re: help X11 performance: make sigprocmask(2) SY_NOLOCK

2013-06-20 Thread Mark Kettenis
> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:40:19 +0200 > From: Martin Pelikan > > > If you're right that atomic_{clear,set}bits_int is correct and > > sufficient and actually faster, then all dynamic executables would > > benefit from this speedup (sigprocmask is used in ld.so(1)). > > Since on i386 GENERIC th

Re: help X11 performance: make sigprocmask(2) SY_NOLOCK

2013-06-20 Thread Mark Kettenis
> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:30:11 +0100 > From: Stuart Henderson > > On 2013/06/20 09:38, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 07:39:15PM +, Miod Vallat wrote: > > > > > > > > - p->p_sigmask = mask &~ sigcantmask; > > > > > > + p->p_sigmask = mask; > > > > >

Re: help X11 performance: make sigprocmask(2) SY_NOLOCK

2013-06-20 Thread Paul Irofti
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:35:32PM +0200, Martin Pelikan wrote: > > I think this is only changed on the context of curproc, so there will > > only be one dude modifying it at a time. > > Problem I see is if there is other code which reads p_sigmask twice, > > since it losed the atomicity between tw

Re: help X11 performance: make sigprocmask(2) SY_NOLOCK

2013-06-20 Thread Martin Pelikan
> I think this is only changed on the context of curproc, so there will > only be one dude modifying it at a time. > Problem I see is if there is other code which reads p_sigmask twice, > since it losed the atomicity between two reads, don't know what can > happen. This was exactly my point. Now

Re: help X11 performance: make sigprocmask(2) SY_NOLOCK

2013-06-20 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2013/06/20 09:38, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 07:39:15PM +, Miod Vallat wrote: > > > > > > - p->p_sigmask = mask &~ sigcantmask; > > > > > + p->p_sigmask = mask; > > > > > > On the right architecture where a word store isn't atomic enough and > >

Re: have indent default to stdin with no input files

2013-06-20 Thread Mark Kettenis
> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:03:48 +1000 > From: Jonathan Gray > > Default to stdin/stdout if no input files are > given to indent. FreeBSD and GNU indent have had > this behaviour for a long time now. > > Based on FreeBSD svn rev 40502 from back in 1998. Makes sense to me. ok kettenis@ > Ind

Re: help X11 performance: make sigprocmask(2) SY_NOLOCK

2013-06-20 Thread Christiano F. Haesbaert
On 20 June 2013 09:38, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 07:39:15PM +, Miod Vallat wrote: > >> > > > - p->p_sigmask = mask &~ sigcantmask; >> > > > + p->p_sigmask = mask; >> > >> > On the right architecture where a word store isn't atomic enough and >>

Re: help X11 performance: make sigprocmask(2) SY_NOLOCK

2013-06-20 Thread Otto Moerbeek
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 07:39:15PM +, Miod Vallat wrote: > > > > - p->p_sigmask = mask &~ sigcantmask; > > > > + p->p_sigmask = mask; > > > > On the right architecture where a word store isn't atomic enough and > > with the right compiler that decides to put p_sigm

have indent default to stdin with no input files

2013-06-20 Thread Jonathan Gray
Default to stdin/stdout if no input files are given to indent. FreeBSD and GNU indent have had this behaviour for a long time now. Based on FreeBSD svn rev 40502 from back in 1998. Index: indent.1 === RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/inde