Delete content instead of removing the whole directory
- Feed Queries
- All Stories
- Search
- Feed Search
- Transactions
- Transaction Logs
Sun, Jan 18
In D54757#1251289, @jrtc27 wrote:In D54757#1251288, @aokblast wrote:In D54757#1251272, @jrtc27 wrote:I don’t understand, other than it sounding like bear is broken
Sorry, the commit message is not clear. I try to explain with more detail. Please tell me if you need anymore information.
When
pwd == $OBJTOP
, and after
run rm -rf "$OBJTOP"
getcwd(3) will return with error since the directory is deleted.
Under this condition:
When shell is executing:
mkdir -p "$OBJTOP"
bear intercepts the libc exec(3) function call and call getcwd in here. As a result, it causes an error.
So... bear makes assumptions that are false and breaks perfectly fine build system code
Sat, Jan 17
In D54757#1251272, @jrtc27 wrote:I don’t understand, other than it sounding like bear is broken
Fri, Jan 16
In D54551#1248714, @markj wrote:Looks ok, but I'd use int in the function signature.
Sat, Jan 10
Minor fixes
Remove License message
Tue, Jan 6
Move commit back
Move commit back
Seperate differential
Minor fixes
Mon, Jan 5
Use x86_msr_op
Simplify dump_sysctl_cb
Add helper functions for single cpu
Sun, Jan 4
Sat, Jan 3
Thanks! Thought I sucessfully booted up on a AMD64 machine, this patch touches the basic logic of smp so I will think twice before landing it.
In D54466#1244696, @ziaee wrote:Thanks aokblast!
This belongs in DESCRIPTION section.
The mdoc(7) manual specifies what goes in SYNOPSIS.Also, each new sentence starts on a new line.
Minor fixes
Sat, Dec 27
Dec 21 2025
Trust sc->req in set_epp and add () in KASSERT
Dec 19 2025
Use hwpstate_amd instead of hwpstate
Not short-circuiting for cpu
Dec 14 2025
In D54173#1238612, @unitrunker_unitrunker.net wrote:Now I have a dilemma.
I can add exclusivity inside libusb20.c or push down one more layer and add this to the backend in libusb20_ugen20.c. To do this in the backend, device_open_t gets a third parameter for the flag. It's a six-for-one, half-dozen-for-the-other kind of decision.
The scope for this change is exclusivity. No plans to touch existing enumeration behavior.
I'll have to create a separate review. Everything will link back to the same bug.
Minor fixes
Dec 13 2025
Haven't test it. But I have a comment. It would be great if we can solve multiple device issue like this.
Dec 12 2025
Thanks for the comments! Hope it looks better now.
- Fix indentation
- Remove hwpstate_cppc_settings structure
- Update sc->req in all cpu cores
- Fix sc->req style nits
- Consistent CAPS and REQUESTS macro
Dec 5 2025
In D49587#1235795, @olce wrote:In D49587#1235740, @aokblast wrote:@olce I think exposing the epp setting interface only in only cpu0 makes sence and therefore I make some changes.
Mmm... It's not that providing it only on CPU 0 does not make sense, but actually having a different knob for each CPU can be useful (admittedly in corner cases), and would be consistent with hwpstate_intel. But that's of course not a blocker, this can be added back later on.
Going to review the new version.
@markj Please also help me review it when you have time, thanks! Also, I remember that you have told me that it is better to send ipi instead of binding the CPU, but I forget the url of your sample code. Could you please provide it in here?
If Mark gives no answer in a few days, I'll suggest something.
Minor fixes
@olce I think exposing the epp setting interface only in only cpu0 makes sence and therefore I make some changes. @markj Please also help me review it when you have time, thanks! Also, I remember that you have told me that it is better to send ipi instead of binding the CPU, but I forget the url of your sample code. Could you please provide it in here?
Expose the epp interface in only cpu 0 and modify all cpu value.
Make sense to me.
Nov 29 2025
In D52166#1232521, @bz wrote:It's gotten silent here. May I ask what the plan is? Is there a chance to get this work into 16?
Oct 9 2025
Oct 3 2025
Oct 1 2025
In D52815#1206854, @imp wrote:I suspect this is fine. ISA is all the on boatd IO that's ioport mapped that's not part of pci. It most likely is lpc based and the ACPI enumeration of that jardware should hang off this bus, not the acpi bus for the software model. But practically, this is easier and there's not enough difference to mater.
@jhb do you think that it is fine? Since you know much about pcie, and isa is the predecessor of pci(e).
I think nobody cares about isa bus stuff.
Also, no modern hardware attaches to isa bridge actually.
But it is really annoying for me to see "none" in pciconf -lv.
Sep 23 2025
Sep 11 2025
Sep 10 2025
In D52423#1197210, @emaste wrote:The wrapping is a bit awkward and I think style(9)'s allowance for an exception to the 80 col width could be warranted here, if you agree.
} else if ((id == HDA_CODEC_ALC295 && subid == FRAMEWORK_LAPTOP_0005_SUBVENDOR) || (id == HDA_CODEC_ALC285 && subid == FRAMEWORK_LAPTOP_000D_SUBVENDOR)) { ``
Sep 8 2025
Sep 7 2025
Hello, I think I need to at least get a usb 3 hub to test this feature since I haven’t had any super speed device. I will take a look at the candidates hub. However, I am occupied by other stuff recently. Maybe you won’t get any feedback very soon (Maybe a months afterI promise that I will be back ASAP since I would like to finish this feature. Sorry for your inconvenience on helping me test this!
Sep 4 2025
In D52166#1196117, @kenrap_kennethraplee.com wrote:In D52166#1196089, @aokblast wrote:In D52166#1196057, @kenrap_kennethraplee.com wrote:In D52166#1196056, @aokblast wrote:Sorry, I know that it is a little bit annoying. But since I don't have such device. Could you please try again?
No worries, I want to make sure this gets done right. I'll be your beta tester for this. 👍
I'm rebuilding my src tree now.
Thanks. I really need to get a device with stream in their descriptor. Could you please try again.
So, there is good news and bad news.
Good news is, the boot time went down significantly to 6 seconds.
The bad news, the device is still not detected by the guest OS.
Another report: https://gist.github.com/kenrap/2ad9fc1a216e0c6f7eb089c4f3b44c5f
In D52166#1196057, @kenrap_kennethraplee.com wrote:In D52166#1196056, @aokblast wrote:Sorry, I know that it is a little bit annoying. But since I don't have such device. Could you please try again?
No worries, I want to make sure this gets done right. I'll be your beta tester for this. 👍
I'm rebuilding my src tree now.
Release max number of Pstreams
Sorry, I know that it is a little bit annoying. But since I don't have such device. Could you please try again?
Fix primary stream id failed