> On Aug 17, 2017, at 7:47 PM, Theo Buehler wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 02:37:51AM +0200, Theo Buehler wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 07:25:14PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
>>> Spotted these when customizing my prompt.
>>>
>>> I think "may differ from" is better than "could be differen
3 week bump.
--
Scott Cheloha
> On Jul 28, 2017, at 8:33 PM, Scott Cheloha wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Unlikely to happen during normal use, but setvbuf(3) can fail
> to allocate your buffer:
>
> /* prog.c */
> #include
>
> int
> main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
>
3 week bump.
--
Scott Cheloha
> On Jul 28, 2017, at 9:26 PM, Scott Cheloha wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This bit from setvbuf(3):
>
> The size parameter may be given as zero to obtain
> deferred optimal-size buffer allocation as usual.
>
> doesn't describe what's happening in setvbuf.c. When
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 22:17:44 +0200
> From: Stefan Sperling
>
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 09:28:43PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 01:38:56 +0200 (CEST)
> > > From: Mark Kettenis
> > >
> > > Because I have a laptop that needs it.
> > >
> > > ok?
> >
> > Ping! Any
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 10:16:55PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> If we attach a device to dwiic(4), we should mark it as attached such
> that we don't try to attach it again. Before this diff, I had:
>
> ihidev0 at iic6 addr 0x5c gpio 77, vendor 0x457 product 0x1133, SIS0457
> ...
> "SIS0457" at
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:26:47PM -0400, trondd wrote:
> Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
> > Ah, perhaps the change to disk behaviour wasn't reflected in calculations
> > then..
>
> I got it figured out.
>
> In the checkfs function, the 'eval $(stat...)' command stores a list of disk
> devices and
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 10:16:55PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> If we attach a device to dwiic(4), we should mark it as attached such
> that we don't try to attach it again. Before this diff, I had:
>
> ihidev0 at iic6 addr 0x5c gpio 77, vendor 0x457 product 0x1133, SIS0457
> ...
> "SIS0457" at
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 09:28:43PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 01:38:56 +0200 (CEST)
> > From: Mark Kettenis
> >
> > Because I have a laptop that needs it.
> >
> > ok?
>
> Ping! Anybody?
Reads fine. ok.
I don't see where rotation is enabled, e.g. where RI_ROTATE_CW
If we attach a device to dwiic(4), we should mark it as attached such
that we don't try to attach it again. Before this diff, I had:
ihidev0 at iic6 addr 0x5c gpio 77, vendor 0x457 product 0x1133, SIS0457
...
"SIS0457" at acpi0 not configured
with this diff, only the first line shows up.
ok?
> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 01:38:56 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Mark Kettenis
>
> Because I have a laptop that needs it.
>
> ok?
Ping! Anybody?
> Index: dev/rasops/rasops.c
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/dev/rasops/rasops.c,v
> retrieving
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 17:14 +0200, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've just triggered an assert in hfsc_deferred (a callout) on an
> MP kernel running on an SP virtual machine:
>
> panic: kernel diagnostic assertion "HFSC_ENABLED(ifq)" failed: file
> "/home/mike/src/openbsd/sys/net/hfsc.c",
Hi,
I've made a mistake when refactoring txp_start recently.
firstprod and firstcnt served one purpose only: they cached the
value of prod and cnt at the start of the loop and then if they'd
get incremented but we'd have to bail and goto the oactive label
we'd restore the r_prod and r_cnt to value
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 13:03:58 +0300
> From: Artturi Alm
>
> Hi,
>
>
> trying to clean/minimalize another diff adding things, and this is rather
> irrelevant to it, so, even if harmless, i'd like to see +| there.
>
> thanks, in advance:)
> -Artturi
Fixed. Thanks!
> diff --git a/sys/dev/f
Hi,
trying to clean/minimalize another diff adding things, and this is rather
irrelevant to it, so, even if harmless, i'd like to see +| there.
thanks, in advance:)
-Artturi
diff --git a/sys/dev/fdt/dwmmc.c b/sys/dev/fdt/dwmmc.c
index e24e6dd1685..1f1d484afc4 100644
--- a/sys/dev/fdt/dwmmc.c
+
14 matches
Mail list logo
