Le 14/12/2013 19:18, Ted Unangst a écrit :
> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 19:06, Maxime Villard wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I was reading linux_socket.c when I came across a bug in
>> linux_sendmsg().
>
>> At l.1252, if control == NULL, the function jumps to 'done' and 'level'
>> is checked while it hasn't been i
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 19:42, Philip Guenther wrote:
> +static __inline int
> +process_is_multithreaded(struct process *pr)
> +{
> + struct proc *p = TAILQ_FIRST(&pr->ps_threads);
> + return (p != NULL && TAILQ_NEXT(p, p_thr_link) != NULL);
This list will never be empty, so you can drop t
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 18:44, Mark Kettenis wrote:
Sorry to derail the train, but...
> +#include
This is no longer looking like the best header for the function
pointers to live in.
> + extern int perflevel;
This should probably live in a header too.
We don't have a sys/cpu.h, but perha
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 19:06, Maxime Villard wrote:
> Hi,
> I was reading linux_socket.c when I came across a bug in
> linux_sendmsg().
> At l.1252, if control == NULL, the function jumps to 'done' and 'level'
> is checked while it hasn't been initialized. As 'control' is NULL,
> copyout() tries
Hi,
I was reading linux_socket.c when I came across a bug in
linux_sendmsg().
Index: linux_socket.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/compat/linux/linux_socket.c,v
retrieving revision 1.46
diff -u -r1.46 linux_socket.c
--- linux_socket.c
Is there something wrong with this patch?
Le 29/11/2013 20:44, Maxime Villard a écrit :
> What about that?
>
> Index: ftp.c
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/ftp/ftp.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.83
> diff -u -r1.83 ftp.c
> --- ftp.c
Machine don't necessarily come out of suspend with CPUs running at the
speed they suspended with. So we might end up in the situation where
apmd(8) thinks we're running at maximum speed while the CPU is clocked
down to its lowest speed, and that situation perpetuates because
apmd(9) doesn't adjust
I would like to end this thread. Here's a final patch:
Index: exec_elf.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/kern/exec_elf.c,v
retrieving revision 1.93
diff -u -r1.93 exec_elf.c
--- exec_elf.c 4 Jul 2013 17:37:05 - 1.93
+++ exec_elf
> Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 08:28:18 -0500
> From: John Carr
>
> Why does a rarely called function need to be inline?
It's not a function, but a typesafe macro ;)
John Carr writes:
> Why does a rarely called function need to be inline?
Well...
>> Testing whether a process is (currently) done by checking whether the
>> process's thread list has a single item. This is currently done in just
>> two places, but I expect to need this in more places,
Why does a rarely called function need to be inline?
> Testing whether a process is (currently) done by checking whether the
> process's thread list has a single item. This is currently done in just
> two places, but I expect to need this in more places, so let's abstract
> that into an inlin
Vadim Zhukov writes:
> 2013/12/13 Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas :
>> Vadim Zhukov writes:
>>
Vadim Zhukov writes:
> This patch addresses two problems:
>
> 1) Usage of getdirentries() - seriously.
> 2) 64-bit-time_t fix.
time_t should be printed with %ll? plus
> Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 19:42:17 -0800
> From: Philip Guenther
>
> Testing whether a process is (currently) done by checking whether the
> process's thread list has a single item. This is currently done in just
> two places, but I expect to need this in more places, so let's abstract
> that
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 11:53:06PM +0100, Alexander Hall wrote:
>On 12/13/13 22:32, Maurice Janssen wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
>>After some discussion on misc@ (see
>>http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.misc/209233 ) I came up
>>with the patch below. Right now, spamd-setup is started with -D in
>>/etc/
14 matches
Mail list logo
