User Details
- User Since
- May 28 2014, 2:27 PM (594 w, 1 d)
Wed, Oct 15
- Rebase the test after the flakyness fix.
Tue, Oct 14
- Improve test per Alan's review.
I trust Alan's expertise here. IMHO, given that this patch is analog to fusefs one, should be fine. But not expert in the area.
In pf_krule we got remaining:
Mon, Oct 13
Sun, Oct 12
If it ever existed it existed in lib/libutil/login_ok.c and lib/libutil/login_times.c. Even the original import to FreeBSD does mention ignoretime.
This options plays together with times.allow and times.deny, that are still documented in the login.conf. I think deeper digging is required to see if this is indeed a cruft or actually a functional thing. If it is cruft, then documentation in login.conf on times.allow/times.deny is also cruft.
Does OpenSSL just picks up openssl.conf from current directory?
Fri, Oct 10
Wed, Oct 8
Tue, Oct 7
Mon, Oct 6
Maybe put that under DIAGNOSTIC or similar hiding ifdef? Only one or two people in the world would ever need this. Those who do, definitely would be compiling kernels.
Sun, Oct 5
Sat, Oct 4
- Add a paragraph on non-blocking mode
- Added sentence on how to set record boundaries with SOCK_SEQPACKET.
Thu, Oct 2
if_vmove bites again? I'm fine with adding more kludges around this problem as long as we all agree that eventually this thing needs to be removed and interfaces shall be fully destroyed and fully instantiated in a different jail.
Wed, Oct 1
I agree with Nick that previous comments were better. You may add assertions that match the checks in the syncookie_expand() case.
Tue, Sep 30
Mon, Sep 29
Sun, Sep 28
if (asprintf(&ret, "%s", (char *)nbuf->buf) < 0)
JFYI, for counter(9) this is all what is needed:
define counter_fetch set $sum = 0 set $c = (uintptr_t )$arg0 + (uintptr_t )&__pcpu[0] set $n = 0 while ( $n < mp_ncpus ) set $sum = $sum + *(uint64_t *)$c set $c = (uint64_t *)((char *)$c + sizeof(struct pcpu)) set $n = $n + 1 end p/u $sum end document counter_fetch display a counter_u64 value end
I see, in
Sat, Sep 27
@jtl is absolutely right with this suggestion. However, what's the point on saving bits and going with uint8_t, especially with portability considerations. We aren't saving any memory here. Why not just use u_int?
- Update Intel
- Remove efi_boot check
Thu, Sep 25
Make it compilable on i386.
Address Benedict's review.
Wed, Sep 24
Thanks a lot for the fix and sorry for the breakage.
What code does call into this function with netlink argument? IMHO, this transport layer abstraction of RPC is a big code bloat where most of the code is never executed. Of course a crash if it happens needs to be fixed.