Re: Patch to add -l flag to cat(1)

> > So, what's the story with the -l option? What change/fix in OpenBSD > > base requires it? > > Nothing requires it explicitly, more the question of if having the > ability for cat to set exclusive locks on its stdout so that multiple > calls to the same cat command will cause the the output to

Re: Patch to add -l flag to cat(1)

Hi Philip, On 23/07/2015 00:54, Philip Guenther wrote: > This is the second time you've sent a patching adding a feature > without saying *why* the feature should be added. That's not very > helpful. Apologies. > Your first patch for cat added a feature (-f option) to solve problem > in NetBSD

Re: Patch to add -l flag to cat(1)

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Sevan Janiyan wrote: > Attached patch adds the -l flag to cat > "This option causes cat(1) to use fcntl(2) to set an exclusive advisory > lock on stdout." which was used to guarantee orderly writing to file. > Obtained from NetBSD cat.c r1.26 This is the second ti

Patch to add -l flag to cat(1)

Hi, Attached patch adds the -l flag to cat "This option causes cat(1) to use fcntl(2) to set an exclusive advisory lock on stdout." which was used to guarantee orderly writing to file. Obtained from NetBSD cat.c r1.26 Sevan Janiyan From NetBSD cat.c r1.32 cat.1 r1.26 Index: bin/cat/cat.1 ===

Re: softraid and 4096-byte sectors 'fixed'

On 22 July 2015 at 18:27, Karel Gardas wrote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Kenneth Westerback > wrote: >> On 22 July 2015 at 12:36, Ted Unangst wrote: >>> Kenneth R Westerback wrote: CAVEAT: The metadata version has changed so new volumes you create will not be loadable on boxes

Re: softraid and 4096-byte sectors 'fixed'

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Kenneth Westerback wrote: > On 22 July 2015 at 12:36, Ted Unangst wrote: >> Kenneth R Westerback wrote: >>> CAVEAT: The metadata version has changed so new volumes you create >>> will not be loadable on boxes running older versions of OpenBSD. >>> >>> CAVEAT: You

any softraid metadata backups?

Hello, as changes to the softraid metadata format have been brought up on tech@ recently, it may be a suitable time now to mention one my concern. It is sector size unrelated, but I think it would be wise to think about it when you plan changes to the metadata format now or in the future. Th

Re: softraid and 4096-byte sectors 'fixed'

On 22 July 2015 at 12:36, Ted Unangst wrote: > Kenneth R Westerback wrote: >> CAVEAT: The metadata version has changed so new volumes you create >> will not be loadable on boxes running older versions of OpenBSD. >> >> CAVEAT: You can't rebuild a volume created with *only* 512-byte >> devices onto

Re: softraid and 4096-byte sectors 'fixed'

Kenneth R Westerback wrote: > CAVEAT: The metadata version has changed so new volumes you create > will not be loadable on boxes running older versions of OpenBSD. > > CAVEAT: You can't rebuild a volume created with *only* 512-byte > devices onto a 4K-sector device. The volume must be created with

softraid and 4096-byte sectors 'fixed'

The diff below is a first cut at making softraid usable on today's larger and larger disks which use 4096-byte sectors. It allows building softraid volumes with such devices, and even building volumes that mix 'classic' 512-byte sector devices with 'avante garde' 4k-sector devices. Unlikely to be

Re: doas failsafe

Figured out one can use an alias if the name of the command is difficult to type to somebody, and the author of the software is the one deciding how is the utility called. I have to think more instead of posting. > I don't think we need the wrapper, but a config-check mode like pfctl > has could b

Re: OpenBSD::Tame perl wrapper for tame(2)

If possible I would like to apologetically unsay the unpleasant words. The only concern was the wrapping code does not impede the development of the underlying framework or change it in some limiting way. Certainly this is most likely not happening so the comments were unnecessary on my part. I'l

Re: mpsafe pmaps

On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 06:33:29PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > So my "unlocking the reaper" diff that was committed the other day > breaks the MP architectures that don't have an "mpsafe" pmap yet (see > my commit message). Is seems hppa's pmap is actually safe enough, but > alpha, m88k, mips64

Re: OpenBSD::Tame perl wrapper for tame(2)

On 2015 Jul 21 (Tue) at 23:51:37 +0300 (+0300), li...@wrant.com wrote: :> Your contributions to the lists are rants or useless noise. What's your :> motivation and do you really gain something by doing that? : :Like mentioning the ruby idiot is an idiot? Sure. Who the "contributor" :are you? : The

Re: [PATCH] Enable -f in ndp(8)

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 02:04:40PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: > Hi, > > I noticed -f in ndp(8) did nothing at all so I've enabled it and > documented the file syntax in the man page. > > === > RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/ndp/n