Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)


2018/freebsd-hackers/20180107.freebsd-hackers

Messages: 81, sorted by subject
Last page update: Sat Jan 3 13:10:19 UTC 2026

home | up | archive | sorted by: subject - author - date - reverse date
  1. Jan  5 Warner Losh                Re: A more general possible meltdown/spectre countermeasure
  2. Jan  5 Eric McCorkle               Re: A more general possible meltdown/spectre countermeasure
  3. Jan  5 Warner Losh                 Re: A more general possible meltdown/spectre countermeasure
  4. Jan  5 Eric McCorkle               Re: A more general possible meltdown/spectre countermeasure
  5. Jan  5 Warner Losh                 Re: A more general possible meltdown/spectre countermeasure
  6. Jan  5 Eric McCorkle               Re: A more general possible meltdown/spectre countermeasure
  7. Jan  5 Warner Losh                 Re: A more general possible meltdown/spectre countermeasure
  8. Jan  5 Eric McCorkle               Re: A more general possible meltdown/spectre countermeasure
  9. Jan  6 Eric McCorkle               Re: A more general possible meltdown/spectre countermeasure
 10. Jan  6 Nathan Dautenhahn           Re: A more general possible meltdown/spectre countermeasure
 11. Jan  6 Gary Jennejohn              Re: A more general possible meltdown/spectre countermeasure
 12. Jan  6 Johannes Lundberg          callout_reset_on() with wait?
 13. Jan  6 Konstantin Belousov         Re: callout_reset_on() with wait?
 14. Jan  4 Eitan Adler                Fwd: [Differential] [Request, 113 lines] D13757: morse: implement support for decoding morse code
 15. Jan  5 Yuri                        Re: Fwd: [Differential] [Request, 113 lines] D13757: morse: implement support for decoding morse code
 16. Jan  5 Eric McCorkle              Fwd: A more general possible meltdown/spectre countermeasure
 17. Jan  6 Eric McCorkle               Re: Fwd: A more general possible meltdown/spectre countermeasure
 18. Jan  6 Warner Losh                 Re: Fwd: A more general possible meltdown/spectre countermeasure
 19. Jan  6 Wojciech Puchar             Re: Fwd: A more general possible meltdown/spectre countermeasure
 20. Jan  6 Wojciech Puchar             Re: Fwd: A more general possible meltdown/spectre countermeasure

 21. Jan  6 Wojciech Puchar             Re: Fwd: A more general possible meltdown/spectre countermeasure
 22. Dec 31 Eitan Adler                Heads Up: bug status changed for untouched bugs since 2014
 23. Dec 31 Eitan Adler                 Re: Heads Up: bug status changed for untouched bugs since 2014
 24. Jan  5 Jules Gilbert              Re: Intel hardware bug
 25. Jan  5 Dag-Erling Smørgrav         Re: Intel hardware bug
 26. Jan  5 Andrew Duane                RE: Intel hardware bug
 27. Jan  5 Eric McCorkle               Re: Intel hardware bug
 28. Jan  5 C Bergström                 Re: Intel hardware bug
 29. Jan  5 Jules Gilbert               Re: Intel hardware bug
 30. Jan  5 Chris H                     Re: Intel hardware bug
 31. Jan  5 Cy Schubert                 RE: Intel hardware bug
 32. Jan  5 Freddie Cash                Re: Intel hardware bug
 33. Jan  5 Jan Knepper                 Re: Intel hardware bug
 34. Jan  5 K. Macy                     Re: Intel hardware bug
 35. Jan  5 K. Macy                     Re: Intel hardware bug
 36. Jan  5 Cy Schubert                 RE: Intel hardware bug
 37. Jan  5 Adam Vande More             Re: Intel hardware bug
 38. Jan  6 John-Mark Gurney            Re: Intel hardware bug
 39. Jan  6 Freddie Cash                Re: Intel hardware bug
 40. Dec 30 Poul-Henning Kamp          Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?

 41. Dec 30 Rodney W. Grimes            Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?
 42. Dec 31 Mark Millard                Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?
 43. Jan  1 Rodney W. Grimes            Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?
 44. Jan  1 Mark Millard                Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?
 45. Jan  1 Mark Millard                Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?
 46. Jan  1 Poul-Henning Kamp           Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?
 47. Jan  1 Poul-Henning Kamp           Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?
 48. Jan  1 Poul-Henning Kamp           Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?
 49. Jan  1 Mark Millard                Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?
 50. Jan  1 Poul-Henning Kamp           Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?
 51. Jan  1 Larry McVoy                 Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?
 52. Jan  1 Mark Millard                Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?
 53. Jan  1 Larry McVoy                 Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?
 54. Jan  1 Rodney W. Grimes            Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?
 55. Jan  1 Ian Lepore                  Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?
 56. Jan  1 Larry McVoy                 Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?
 57. Jan  1 Warner Losh                 Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?
 58. Jan  1 Rodney W. Grimes            Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?
 59. Jan  1 Poul-Henning Kamp           Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?
 60. Jan  1 hiren panchasara            Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?

 61. Jan  1 Warner Losh                 Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?
 62. Jan  1 Rodney W. Grimes            Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?
 63. Jan  1 Warner Losh                 Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?
 64. Jan  1 Rodney W. Grimes            Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?
 65. Jan  5 Brooks Davis                Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?
 66. Jan  5 Eugene Grosbein             Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?
 67. Jan  5 Eric van Gyzen              Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?
 68. Jan  5 Poul-Henning Kamp           Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?
 69. Jan  5 Eugene Grosbein             Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?
 70. Jan  5 Conrad Meyer                Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?
 71. Jan  6 Ian Lepore                  Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?
 72. Jan  6 Brooks Davis                Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base?
 73. Jan  4 Kristof Provost            RFC: mallocarray()
 74. Jan  2 Mark Millard               rpi2 head -r327485 (e.g.): rpi2 leaves one "CPU n" always idle for some boots
 75. Jan  2 Mark Millard                Re: rpi2 head -r327485 (e.g.): rpi2 leaves one "CPU n" always idle for some boots
 76. Jan  2 Allan Jude                  Re: rpi2 head -r327485 (e.g.): rpi2 leaves one "CPU n" always idle for some boots
 77. Jan  2 Mark Millard                Re: rpi2 head -r327485 (e.g.): rpi2 leaves one "CPU n" always idle for some boots
 78. Jan  2 Mark Millard                Re: rpi2 head -r327485 (e.g.): rpi2 leaves one "CPU n" always idle for some boots
 79. Jan  4 Benjamin Kaduk             Second Call for 2017Q4 quarterly status reports
 80. Jan  2 Zaphod Beeblebrox          Re: We do serial differently.

 81. Jan  4 Kyle Evans                  Re: We do serial differently.

home | up | archive | sorted by: subject - author - date - reverse date