HECnet

hecnet@lists.dfupdate.se

2 participants
15583 discussions

by bqt＠softjar.se

On 2012-06-07 17:44, Marc Chametzky wrote: 1171 cc: WARNING File = bridge.c, Line = 684 The indicated expression has no effect. if (port == 0) port == DPORT; ^ Apart from putting in a conditional? DPORT is a constant that I intended for users that compile to be able to change, if they want to. By default is't zero, thus the compiler sees: if (port == 0) port = 0; No, that's not what the compiler is seeing. Instead, it's seeing this: if (port == 0) 1; That's because you have "port == DPORT" (a conditional, not an assignment statement). Jeeeez. When the f* did that sneak in there??? I'm way too tired today (obviously). That was totally meaningless. (Maybe just my brain, knowing what it should say just managed to ignore that extra equal sign.) Thanks for pointing out the obvious. Fixed now. Johnny

13 years, 5 months

New bridge.c feedback

by marc＠bluevine.net

Marc, are you sure ? It means that the assignment gets evaluated as a boolean expression?? Yes... you've got "port == DPORT" with two equal signs. That's not an assignment. That is going to evaluate to see whether it's true or false. Since DPORT = 0 by default, then it's evaluating "port == 0" which is true, thus its value is 1. So, you've got a statement which is: 1; Essentially, it's a no-op. With DPORT = 0, it doesn't make any difference, save for a compiler warning. If you were to set DPORT to some other number, though, the assignment wouldn't take place as would otherwise be expected. --Marc

13 years, 5 months

New bridge.c feedback

by hvlems＠zonnet.nl

Marc, are you sure ? It means that the assignment gets evaluated as a boolean expression?? -----Original Message----- From: Marc Chametzky <marc at bluevine.net> Sender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 11:44:31 To: <hecnet at Update.UU.SE> Reply-To: hecnet at Update.UU.SESubject: Re: [HECnet] New bridge.c feedback 1171 cc: WARNING File = bridge.c, Line = 684 The indicated expression has no effect. if (port == 0) port == DPORT; ^ Apart from putting in a conditional? DPORT is a constant that I intended for users that compile to be able to change, if they want to. By default is't zero, thus the compiler sees: if (port == 0) port = 0; No, that's not what the compiler is seeing. Instead, it's seeing this: if (port == 0) 1; That's because you have "port == DPORT" (a conditional, not an assignment statement). which is pretty meaningless, and thus something to warn about. But how should I change the code to avoid that? I could (of course) add a check to the if, but that makes it look more complicated, and silly. Oh well, checking if DPORT have been defined to something non-zero is a pretty reasonable solution I think. --Marc

13 years, 5 months

New bridge.c feedback

by hvlems＠zonnet.nl

Wouldn't an #ifndef DPORT statement solve that? Hans (And I'm an algol programmer, not very well versed in C magic ;-) ------Origineel bericht------ Van: Johnny Billquist Afzender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE Aan: hecnet at Update.UU.SE Beantwoorden: hecnet at Update.UU.SE Onderwerp: Re: [HECnet] New bridge.c feedback Verzonden: 7 juni 2012 17:18 On 2012-06-07 16:32, Marc Chametzky wrote: cc-1171 cc: WARNING File = bridge.c, Line = 684 The indicated expression has no effect. if (port == 0) port == DPORT; ^ Blech! Well, DPORT is by default set to 0. See the documentation of the define in the sources... This one will stay. I saw your second message about putting this in a conditional, but out of curiosity, why wouldn't you want to fix it? You don't have an assignment statement here, so if you do define DPORT, it won't take effect the way you want with the code like this. Apart from putting in a conditional? DPORT is a constant that I intended for users that compile to be able to change, if they want to. By default is't zero, thus the compiler sees: if (port == 0) port = 0; which is pretty meaningless, and thus something to warn about. But how should I change the code to avoid that? I could (of course) add a check to the if, but that makes it look more complicated, and silly. Oh well, checking if DPORT have been defined to something non-zero is a pretty reasonable solution I think. Johnny

13 years, 5 months

New bridge.c feedback

by marc＠bluevine.net

1171 cc: WARNING File = bridge.c, Line = 684 The indicated expression has no effect. if (port == 0) port == DPORT; ^ Apart from putting in a conditional? DPORT is a constant that I intended for users that compile to be able to change, if they want to. By default is't zero, thus the compiler sees: if (port == 0) port = 0; No, that's not what the compiler is seeing. Instead, it's seeing this: if (port == 0) 1; That's because you have "port == DPORT" (a conditional, not an assignment statement). which is pretty meaningless, and thus something to warn about. But how should I change the code to avoid that? I could (of course) add a check to the if, but that makes it look more complicated, and silly. Oh well, checking if DPORT have been defined to something non-zero is a pretty reasonable solution I think. --Marc

13 years, 5 months

New bridge.c feedback

by bqt＠softjar.se

On 2012-06-07 16:32, Marc Chametzky wrote: cc-1171 cc: WARNING File = bridge.c, Line = 684 The indicated expression has no effect. if (port == 0) port == DPORT; ^ Blech! Well, DPORT is by default set to 0. See the documentation of the define in the sources... This one will stay. I saw your second message about putting this in a conditional, but out of curiosity, why wouldn't you want to fix it? You don't have an assignment statement here, so if you do define DPORT, it won't take effect the way you want with the code like this. Apart from putting in a conditional? DPORT is a constant that I intended for users that compile to be able to change, if they want to. By default is't zero, thus the compiler sees: if (port == 0) port = 0; which is pretty meaningless, and thus something to warn about. But how should I change the code to avoid that? I could (of course) add a check to the if, but that makes it look more complicated, and silly. Oh well, checking if DPORT have been defined to something non-zero is a pretty reasonable solution I think. Johnny

13 years, 5 months

User mode DECnet (was Multinet Tunnel Connections to SG1::)

by bqt＠softjar.se

On 2012-06-07 16:15, Bob Armstrong wrote: Johnny Billquist wrote: Are you actually talking now about implementing a DECnet stack on a machine in user mode? That is definitely not doable. Is that really true? I don't believe it. How about an Einstein style "gedanken experiment" - put simh on a machine (which is an entirely user mode program), load VMS on it. Bingo - a user mode implementation of a DECnet stack. I was meaning as in non-root. Sigh. I don't know how I managed to screw up terminology that way... I don't mean this as a practical solution to DECnet on Linux, but it's clearly possible to get all the Ethernet access you need to implement DECnet in a user mode program. N.B. "user mode" is not the same as "run as root". Promiscuous mode requires root privilege, but that's still a user mode program. Correct. For some reason I screwed up at that point. Johnny

13 years, 5 months

Multinet Tunnel Connections to SG1::

by bqt＠softjar.se

On 2012-06-07 15:55, Mark Benson wrote: On 7 Jun 2012, at 13:44, Jordi Guillaumes i Pons <jg at jordi.guillaumes.name> wrote: If I've understood it correctly, the idea is to replace the (dying) kernel support for DECNet under linux by userland code, so it the current module dies definitely due to kernel ABI changes we could still use decnet in the Linux boxes. As Johnny pointed out, some root access is required for a daemon to play with the ethernet but with that in place the rest would be userland, yes. The key is no kernel module or kernel support is necessary because it's going away. I guess it might be worth pointing out that running as root still means it's in user mode. There is nothing that needs to be in the kernel itself. You can do all of it from userland. But you need parts to be running as root. That is potentially a security problem, yes. No helping that. But carefully written code is always a good idea. I'd add as an additional benefit that moving decnet out of the kernel would make possible to port it to other unix flavours, like the BSDs and Mac OSX. That was also part of my modus operandi. It would port to prettymuch and OS that supports libpcap and MAC address spoofing (possibly Windows?). Actually an interesting point. Johnny

13 years, 5 months

Introducing myself... and my little network

by hvlems＠zonnet.nl

The 20 VUPS rating listed for the -60 comes from my own website. It was measured with a homegrown vups tool and its accuracy is ummm, limited. One can argue that is true for all vups ratings ... (The M in MIPS stands for meaningless :-) However I find a model 90A with 128MB memory a lot faster than any of my model 60's. It just shows that speed, like beauty only exists in the eye of the owner. I always considered a Vax 8550 faster than a 6410 or an 8650 . Perception eh. Hans -----Original Message----- From: Mark Wickens <mark at wickensonline.co.uk> Sender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 15:08:24 To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE<hecnet at Update.UU.SE> Reply-To: hecnet at Update.UU.SESubject: Re: [HECnet] Introducing myself... and my little network Just consulted a few online VPUs comparisons and it looks like we're both slightly wrong, although I'm happy to be corrected: VAXstation 4000 model 60: 12 VUPS VAXstation 4000 model 90: 32 VUPS VAXstation 4000 model 90A: 40 VUPS VAXstation 4000 model 96: 45 VUPS However as I've said apart from CPU intensive tasks the '60 doesn't 'feel' much slower than the '90. Regards, Mark. Sent from my iPad On 7 Jun 2012, at 14:12, hvlems at zonnet.nl wrote: The Vaxstation 4000 model 60 is rated at approx 20 VUPS, the 90A at 40 VUPS. I don"t own a model 90. The 90A's are very fast compared to other Vaxes I worked with. Two exceptions, the 4705A and the 4108 (4105?, the one that cames in a plastic PC style cabinet) were also quite fast. The Vaxstation 4000 model 96 is faster than the 90A (45 VUPS). I certainly would like one for my collection! Hans ------Origineel bericht------ Van: Mark Benson Afzender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE Aan: hecnet at Update.UU.SE Beantwoorden: hecnet at Update.UU.SE Onderwerp: Re: [HECnet] Introducing myself... and my little network Verzonden: 7 juni 2012 13:41 On 7 Jun 2012, at 10:33, Jordi Guillaumes i Pons <jg at jordi.guillaumes.name> wrote: Hello list, I've just joined HECnet under the area 7, and I wanted to introduce myself and my little puppies :) Hello! I am interested to know how you find the performance of the VAXstation 4000/60 compared to others. Good to see someone with such great skills on old iron join us. I know very little outside vasics and simple DECnet setup :) -- Mark Benson http://markbenson.org/blog http://twitter.com/MDBenson

13 years, 5 months

Multinet Tunnel Connections to SG1::

by md.benson＠gmail.com

-- Mark Benson http://markbenson.org/blog http://twitter.com/MDBenson On 7 Jun 2012, at 15:38, Chrissie Caulfield <christine.caulfield at googlemail.com> wrote: Depending on the OS, it's perfectly doable. I wrote LAT for Linux in this exact way - because I didn't want to mess around inside the kernel. It's not ideal, and performance will probably be awful, but if you can get access to raw ethernet packets it's not not even especially hard :) ... and thus she didst spake (or something). :)That's what made me think it must be possible. -- Mark Benson http://markbenson.org/blog http://twitter.com/MDBenson

13 years, 5 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

HECnet