[PATCH] src/usr.bin/ftp/fetch.c: free ressl_config

2014-09-11 Thread Kent R. Spillner
While reviewing tedu@'s libressl config cleanup diffs I noticed we're not explicitly freeing ressl_config in ftp(1). Ok? Index: fetch.c === RCS file: /work/cvsroot/src/usr.bin/ftp/fetch.c,v retrieving revision 1.129 diff -p -u -r1.12

[PATCH] fix overflow handling in dd(1)

2014-09-11 Thread William Orr
Hey, I'm resubmitting this patch since the source tree was locked last time I submitted. Any thoughts? Thanks, William Orr Index: bin/dd/args.c === RCS file: /cvs/src/bin/dd/args.c,v retrieving revision 1.25 diff -u -b -w -p -r1.25

Re: improve ressl config setting

2014-09-11 Thread Ted Unangst
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 16:38, Ted Unangst wrote: > On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 13:06, Ted Unangst wrote: > >> Instead, ressl should copy all parameters as necessary and >> free them. This does introduce an error case into formerly void >> functions, but I think that's ok. The alternative would be to

Re: apmd hangs

2014-09-11 Thread Giovanni Bechis
On 09/08/14 23:35, Mark Kettenis wrote: > The more code & documentation I read, the more I'm convinced that > coordinating state changes between logical processors isn't necessary > and actually is responsible for the hangs people have been seeing. > > So here is a diff that does away with it all.

Re: PATCH: fix iwn(4) scan hangs

2014-09-11 Thread Fabian Raetz
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 08:52:42PM +0200, Marcin Piotr Pawlowski wrote: > Hi, > > On 09/10/14 20:19, Fabian Raetz wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 02:42:43PM +0200, Marcin Piotr Pawlowski wrote: > >> Yes, I think that it could be is possible to double clean the node cache. > >> > >> Updated diff

Re: audioctl: drop useless fields

2014-09-11 Thread Alexandr Shadchin
I like it. ok shadchin@ On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:31 PM, Alexandre Ratchov wrote: > audioctl output is full of useless, misleading and/or unreliable > fields. Let's keep the usable ones only. The plan is to remove them > from the kernel as well. > > OK? > > Index: audioctl.c > =

Re: audioctl: drop useless fields

2014-09-11 Thread Jonathan Armani
ok armani@ 2014-09-10 19:31 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Ratchov : > audioctl output is full of useless, misleading and/or unreliable > fields. Let's keep the usable ones only. The plan is to remove them > from the kernel as well. > > OK? > > Index: audioctl.c > ===

Re: audioctl: drop useless fields

2014-09-11 Thread Landry Breuil
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 11:54:08AM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote: > On 09/11/14 09:58, Alexandre Ratchov wrote: > >On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 07:31:17PM +0200, Alexandre Ratchov wrote: > >>audioctl output is full of useless, misleading and/or unreliable > >>fields. Let's keep the usable ones only. The p

Re: audioctl: drop useless fields

2014-09-11 Thread Alexander Hall
On 09/11/14 09:58, Alexandre Ratchov wrote: On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 07:31:17PM +0200, Alexandre Ratchov wrote: audioctl output is full of useless, misleading and/or unreliable fields. Let's keep the usable ones only. The plan is to remove them from the kernel as well. OK? I've been asked in p

Re: splnet() and SIOCSIFADDR

2014-09-11 Thread Martin Pieuchot
On 03/09/14(Wed) 23:59, Claudio Jeker wrote: > On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 03:25:34PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > Drivers that need a splnet() protection inside their SIOCSIFADDR > > generally raise the spl level themselves, so we should not need > > to do that in in{6,}_ifinit(). One exception

Re: splnet() and SIOCSIFADDR

2014-09-11 Thread Martin Pieuchot
On 03/09/14(Wed) 20:59, Alexander Bluhm wrote: > On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 03:53:34PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > @@ -1078,7 +1079,7 @@ in6_purgeaddr(struct ifaddr *ifa) > > void > > in6_unlink_ifa(struct in6_ifaddr *ia6, struct ifnet *ifp) > > { > > - int s = splnet(); > > + splsoft

Re: audioctl: drop useless fields

2014-09-11 Thread Alexandre Ratchov
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 07:31:17PM +0200, Alexandre Ratchov wrote: > audioctl output is full of useless, misleading and/or unreliable > fields. Let's keep the usable ones only. The plan is to remove them > from the kernel as well. > > OK? I've been asked in private to explain the reason I think t