On 10/01/14 4:05 PM, mark rowland wrote:
The entry for intel product 0x0a04 was not in the right spot, new diff:
--- /usr/src/sys/dev/pci/pcidevsWed Jan 8 23:52:05 2014
+++ pcidevs Fri Jan 10 21:54:24 2014
@@ -1293,7 +1293,7 @@
product ATI RADEON_X700_PCIE_S0x5e6d Radeon
The entry for intel product 0x0a04 was not in the right spot, new diff:
--- /usr/src/sys/dev/pci/pcidevsWed Jan 8 23:52:05 2014
+++ pcidevs Fri Jan 10 21:54:24 2014
@@ -1293,7 +1293,7 @@
product ATI RADEON_X700_PCIE_S 0x5e6d Radeon X700 PCIE Sec
product ATI RADEON_X700_SE 0x5e4
Recognize previously unknown Intel Core 4th Gen. Host Bridge and Radeon HD
8750M. Radeon HD 8750M and HD 8670A have the same pci id.
-current:
pchb0 at pci0 dev 0 function 0 vendor "Intel", unknown product 0x0a04 rev 0x09
ATI Radeon HD 8670A" rev 0x00 at pci3 dev 0 function 0 not configured
-cur
> > One-line synopsis for signify(1):
> > signify [-neGVI] [-o sigfile] [-p pubkey] [-s seckey] [message]
> >
> > What's currently in there:
> > signify -G [-n] -p pubkey -s seckey
> > signify -I [-o sigfile] [-p pubkey] [-s seckey]
> > signify -S [-e] [-o sigfile] -s seckey me
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 01:55:23PM +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 08:05:44AM +0001, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 01:01:46AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > > well then this means the description of -c is very poor. i would look
> > > > for a fix there, not
Marc Espie wrote:
> if you're trying to use pkg_add directly to grab/update firmwares, make
> sure to use -DFW_UPDATE on those.
Also for pkg_delete:
# pkg_delete acx-firmware-1.4p4
Package signed by untrusted party 54fw
Fatal error: package acx-firmware-1.4p4 was corrupted: signature check fail
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:16, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > this would have made my life so much simpler yesterday. and for
> > whoever tweaks and tunes the synopsis or text to further clarity in
> > the future.
>
> > Index: md5.1
> > ===
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:16, Ted Unangst wrote:
> this would have made my life so much simpler yesterday. and for
> whoever tweaks and tunes the synopsis or text to further clarity in
> the future.
> Index: md5.1
> ===
> RCS file: /
this would have made my life so much simpler yesterday. and for
whoever tweaks and tunes the synopsis or text to further clarity in
the future.
I am choosing to document sha256 as the primary example, leaving the
others as exercises for the reader. But I'm using the md5.1 page
because the code is
On 10 January 2014 15:35, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> HIDE probably exists to allow switching to static functions.
> We don't usually have static functions in the kernel so I don't
> see the point in keeping this. It just clutters the code.
>
go for it.
HIDE probably exists to allow switching to static functions.
We don't usually have static functions in the kernel so I don't
see the point in keeping this. It just clutters the code.
Index: if_spppsubr.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/net
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 11:57, Artur Grabowski wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Ted Unangst wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 05:14, Miod Vallat wrote:
Replace with memcpy.
>>> Vetoed.
> Don't do it.
You two are always spoiling all the fun!
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 08:05:44AM +0001, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 01:01:46AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > well then this means the description of -c is very poor. i would look
> > > for a fix there, not in SYNOPSIS.
> >
> > But look closer, the synopsis is wrong:
> >
We're currently trying out some new stuff, purely as an experiment (the
files in /etc/signify all say so explicitly, don't put any confidence in
them)
if you experience trouble running fw_update, make sure you have
a new snapshot.
if you're trying to use pkg_add directly to grab/update firmwares,
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 05:14, Miod Vallat wrote:
>>> The only caller of kcopy is uiomove. There is no way a function like
>>> this can ever work. If you need to rely on your copy function to save
>>> you from pointers outside the address space
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 01:01:46AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > well then this means the description of -c is very poor. i would look
> > for a fix there, not in SYNOPSIS.
>
> But look closer, the synopsis is wrong:
>
> sha256 [-bpqrtx] [-c [checklist ...]] [-s string] [file ...]
>
> It
> well then this means the description of -c is very poor. i would look
> for a fix there, not in SYNOPSIS.
But look closer, the synopsis is wrong:
sha256 [-bpqrtx] [-c [checklist ...]] [-s string] [file ...]
It is not regular. When does checklist ... stop and file ... start?
No matter wh
17 matches
Mail list logo
