From owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 4 16:19:05 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E75C816A403 for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 16:19:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org) Received: from anuket.mj.niksun.com (gwnew.niksun.com [65.115.46.162]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 995B443CCC for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 16:17:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org) Received: from niksun.com (anuket [10.70.0.5]) by anuket.mj.niksun.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kB4GI0wf040511; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 11:18:04 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org) From: Jung-uk Kim To: Alexander Leidinger Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 11:17:49 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <20061106174033.GA70360@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> <17775.8117.809750.563506@gromit.timing.com> <20061202143457.58db58d5@Magellan.Leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <20061202143457.58db58d5@Magellan.Leidinger.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200612041117.53989.jkim@FreeBSD.org> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2276/Mon Dec 4 03:15:27 2006 on anuket.mj.niksun.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [PATCH]: possible fix for the fifoor problem X-BeenThere: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Development of Emulators of other operating systems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 16:19:06 -0000 On Saturday 02 December 2006 08:34 am, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting John E Hein (Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:15:17 -0700): > > Jung-uk Kim wrote at 16:16 -0500 on Nov 29, 2006: > > > This is fixed differently in P4: > > > > > > http://perforce.freebsd.org/changeView.cgi?CH=109652 > > > > This patch (a small, but important, subset of your REV 5 above) > > was good enough for me on 6.x - it seems to solve the problems > > I've been seeing with linux_seamonkey dialog boxes... > > [patch] > > Jung-uk, is this something you intent to commit soon, or is there > some stuff which needs to be changed first (the same questions > applies to the mknod stuff which removes the need to fsck the FS to > get rid of some unaccessible files after running the LTP)? I think both are safe to commit. I will do that soon. Jung-uk Kim