* [9fans] gsoc2010 + plan9 @ 2010-03-03 23:09 Tim Newsham 2010-03-03 23:40 ` David Leimbach 2010-03-04 17:39 ` Balwinder S Dheeman 0 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Tim Newsham @ 2010-03-03 23:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans Some people were asking on #plan9 -- will there be any GSOC projects this year? Time is ticking down. Tim Newsham | www.thenewsh.com/~newsham | thenewsh.blogspot.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] gsoc2010 + plan9 2010-03-03 23:09 [9fans] gsoc2010 + plan9 Tim Newsham @ 2010-03-03 23:40 ` David Leimbach 2010-03-04 1:35 ` Venkatesh Srinivas 2010-03-04 17:39 ` Balwinder S Dheeman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: David Leimbach @ 2010-03-03 23:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 575 bytes --] What's the current state of the following: 1. 9vx 2. 9null 3. Cpu from Inferno to Plan 9? (i think this might be in npe's inferno fork) 4. Inferno DS? (Is anyone still interested in it?) 5. SSH2? 6. LinuxEMU improvements? I'm sure there's plenty of ideas floating around people could work on. Dave On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Tim Newsham <newsham@lava.net> wrote: > Some people were asking on #plan9 -- will there be any GSOC > projects this year? Time is ticking down. > > Tim Newsham | www.thenewsh.com/~newsham | thenewsh.blogspot.com > > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1091 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] gsoc2010 + plan9 2010-03-03 23:40 ` David Leimbach @ 2010-03-04 1:35 ` Venkatesh Srinivas 0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Venkatesh Srinivas @ 2010-03-04 1:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 6:40 PM, David Leimbach <leimy2k@gmail.com> wrote: > What's the current state of the following: ... > 3. Cpu from Inferno to Plan 9? (i think this might be in npe's inferno > fork) ... Yep, its there. :D -- vs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] gsoc2010 + plan9 2010-03-03 23:09 [9fans] gsoc2010 + plan9 Tim Newsham 2010-03-03 23:40 ` David Leimbach @ 2010-03-04 17:39 ` Balwinder S Dheeman 2010-03-04 18:04 ` erik quanstrom ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Balwinder S Dheeman @ 2010-03-04 17:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans On 03/04/2010 04:41 AM, Tim Newsham wrote: > Some people were asking on #plan9 -- will there be any GSOC > projects this year? Time is ticking down. What about? 1) Improving IPv6 stack, particularly the router advertisements part, ip/ipconfig -6 # works fine ip/ipconfig ra6 recvra 1 # does not work 2) Add support for more SATA/AHCI controlers; I have: 00:02.0 ISA bridge [0601]: Silicon Integrated Systems [SiS] SiS968 [MuTIOL Media IO] [1039:0968] (rev 01) I think, the above is a PCI bridge, may the Linux lspci -nn is reporting it wrongly because of [0601] id, which should be [0604]. Neither the 9load nor the kernel recognizes it. and I saw: 00:05.0 SATA controller [0106]: Silicon Integrated Systems [SiS] AHCI IDE Controller (0106) [1039:1185] (rev 03) is seems to be supported by the 9load and, or kernel, but I could not install neither the plan9 not 9atom on this drive; none of the IDE/AHCI mode worked, whereas Linux, FreeBSD and Windows-7 are working fine in AHCI mode. 3) HDA/AC97 Audio controllers -- Balwinder S "bdheeman" Dheeman Registered Linux User: #229709 Anu'z Linux@HOME (Unix Shoppe) Machines: #168573, 170593, 259192 Chandigarh, UT, 160062, India Plan9, T2, Arch/Debian/FreeBSD/XP Home: http://werc.homelinux.net/ Visit: http://counter.li.org/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] gsoc2010 + plan9 2010-03-04 17:39 ` Balwinder S Dheeman @ 2010-03-04 18:04 ` erik quanstrom 2010-03-05 15:39 ` Balwinder S Dheeman 2010-03-04 18:43 ` Chad Brown 2010-03-05 1:27 ` geoff 2 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: erik quanstrom @ 2010-03-04 18:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > > 2) Add support for more SATA/AHCI controlers; I have: > [...] > 00:05.0 SATA controller [0106]: Silicon Integrated Systems [SiS] AHCI > IDE Controller (0106) [1039:1185] (rev 03) > > is seems to be supported by the 9load and, or kernel, but I could not > install neither the plan9 not 9atom on this drive; none of the IDE/AHCI > mode worked, whereas Linux, FreeBSD and Windows-7 are working fine in > AHCI mode. should be supported by sdiahci.c already, at least the 9atom version of it. if you have a specific failure report, i'd like to hear it. - erik ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] gsoc2010 + plan9 2010-03-04 18:04 ` erik quanstrom @ 2010-03-05 15:39 ` Balwinder S Dheeman 0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Balwinder S Dheeman @ 2010-03-05 15:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans On 03/04/2010 11:42 PM, erik quanstrom wrote: >> >> 2) Add support for more SATA/AHCI controlers; I have: >> > [...] >> 00:05.0 SATA controller [0106]: Silicon Integrated Systems [SiS] AHCI >> IDE Controller (0106) [1039:1185] (rev 03) >> >> is seems to be supported by the 9load and, or kernel, but I could not >> install neither the plan9 not 9atom on this drive; none of the IDE/AHCI >> mode worked, whereas Linux, FreeBSD and Windows-7 are working fine in >> AHCI mode. > > should be supported by sdiahci.c already, at least the 9atom > version of it. > > if you have a specific failure report, i'd like to hear it. Well, 9atom did the trick this time, though the installer could not mount the same medium (/dev/sdE1/data) from which it was booted off :( The cdrecord/cdrtools 2.01.01a76-1 puked an error related to start sector, but it burned the disk, which used for boot 9atom. So I copied the iso image to a dos partition on /dev/sdE0, also needed to rename it to plan9.iso, because installer does not recognize the 9atom.iso Everything during the install worked fine, except for a lot of errors related to some invalid uids on the iso. Anyway, thanks lot for the great work; all Debian/XEN-dom0, Windows-7, FreeBSD, Plan9 and Ubuntu desktop are working fine in AHCI mode now :) -- Balwinder S "bdheeman" Dheeman Registered Linux User: #229709 Anu'z Linux@HOME (Unix Shoppe) Machines: #168573, 170593, 259192 Chandigarh, UT, 160062, India Plan9, T2, Arch/Debian/FreeBSD/XP Home: http://werc.homelinux.net/ Visit: http://counter.li.org/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] gsoc2010 + plan9 2010-03-04 17:39 ` Balwinder S Dheeman 2010-03-04 18:04 ` erik quanstrom @ 2010-03-04 18:43 ` Chad Brown 2010-03-04 19:05 ` erik quanstrom 2010-03-05 1:27 ` geoff 2 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Chad Brown @ 2010-03-04 18:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs > 2) Add support for more SATA/AHCI controlers; I have: FWIW, GSoC projects that amount to ``add some drivers for my non-linux OS!'' have historically been unpopular, unfinished, and generally unloved projects (perhaps barring last year, when I didn't really pay attention). I recommend against making them a significant part of your GSoC proposal; I might go so far as to recommend against adding them at all. *Chad ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] gsoc2010 + plan9 2010-03-04 18:43 ` Chad Brown @ 2010-03-04 19:05 ` erik quanstrom 2010-03-04 21:13 ` ron minnich 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: erik quanstrom @ 2010-03-04 19:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > > 2) Add support for more SATA/AHCI controlers; I have: > > FWIW, GSoC projects that amount to ``add some drivers for my non-linux > OS!'' have historically been unpopular, unfinished, and generally > unloved projects (perhaps barring last year, when I didn't really pay > attention). I recommend against making them a significant part of > your GSoC proposal; I might go so far as to recommend against adding > them at all. i don't believe i heard that as a specific complaint at the mentors summit. perhaps i wasn't listening to the right people. what i did hear is that many projects suffered from overambition. students (like all software developers) consistently underestimate the scope of work and overestimate the rate at which they can get it done. also underestimated was the time required to get a development environment up-and-running. for drivers, there are often these two additional problems. students and mentors alike underestimate the difficultiy of learning multiprogramming. and porting a driver is generally much harder than writing a new one from the documentation because it's hard to tell why a driver casts the runes it does without (you guessed it) the documentation. assuming these concerns are addressed, i think mentoring a driver project could be fun. for example, there are a number of 10/100 chipsets that have good documentation that's under 100 pages. complete with (oh, my) a theory of operation. that could be an intersting project if a dev environment were easy to set up. a basic smb driver could also fun to do and within the scope of work for a summer. - erik ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] gsoc2010 + plan9 2010-03-04 19:05 ` erik quanstrom @ 2010-03-04 21:13 ` ron minnich 2010-03-04 21:45 ` Patrick Kelly 2010-03-05 12:13 ` Georg Lehner 0 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: ron minnich @ 2010-03-04 21:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs The big thing I'd like to see as a GSOC project, and which I think is doable, is a first-class set of drivers for the beagle and/or IGEP. The beagle is cheap and would be a very nice terminal. It's close on some fronts. We really need video. USB is not there yet. There are other problems. At the same time, Geoff has done a great job of giving us a foundation from which we can work. It's interesting but watching the way things are going, ARM-based designs are really taking off. I just visited a vendor who told me they're churning out just one type of CPU at 1M a month and they're growing. I think the opportunities for doing good Plan 9 work on ARM are going to grow quite a bit. It may well prove a better platform for the future than PCs, which are increasingly closed and esoteric. But I think the drivers would not be too hard, I've looked at (e.g.) the U-boot video driver and think it could go into Plan 9 without too much trouble. I don't see this as a super-hard project and it would provide us with a nice platform. ron ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] gsoc2010 + plan9 2010-03-04 21:13 ` ron minnich @ 2010-03-04 21:45 ` Patrick Kelly 2010-03-05 2:55 ` erik quanstrom 2010-03-05 12:13 ` Georg Lehner 1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Patrick Kelly @ 2010-03-04 21:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs On Mar 4, 2010, at 4:13 PM, ron minnich wrote: > The big thing I'd like to see as a GSOC project, and which I think is > doable, is a first-class set of drivers for the beagle and/or IGEP. > > The beagle is cheap and would be a very nice terminal. > > It's close on some fronts. We really need video. USB is not there yet. > There are other problems. At the same time, Geoff has done a great job > of giving us a foundation from which we can work. Thats the thing, drivers are the most needed. Fancy programs won't do you any good if Plan 9 won't even run on your machine. > It's interesting but watching the way things are going, ARM-based > designs are really taking off. I just visited a vendor who told me > they're churning out just one type of CPU at 1M a month and they're > growing. That's great news. Personally I wish it was the MIPS, but it'll do. > I think the opportunities for doing good Plan 9 work on ARM are going > to grow quite a bit. It may well prove a better platform for the > future than PCs, which are increasingly closed and esoteric. I think a broken table would make a better platform than a PC, and it seems to be getting worse. It might be worth it to devote a little more effort into non-80x86 platforms. Windows dominates it and won't be moving any time soon, OS X runs strictly on it, and the GCC is focused almost entirely on it, Heck most everything run on it. It certainly seems like there is a slight renewed interest in RISC machines. Most everyone I know has a laptop, and with the 80x86's horrid power needs... Leaning a little towards another platform could turn out to be a good idea. > But I think the drivers would not be too hard, I've looked at (e.g.) > the U-boot video driver and think it could go into Plan 9 without too > much trouble. I don't see this as a super-hard project and it would > provide us with a nice platform. > > ron > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] gsoc2010 + plan9 2010-03-04 21:45 ` Patrick Kelly @ 2010-03-05 2:55 ` erik quanstrom 0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: erik quanstrom @ 2010-03-05 2:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > I think a broken table would make a better platform than a PC, and it > seems to be getting worse. this may be true. but can you name another platform? arm is a cpu grab bag, not a platform. > It certainly seems like there is a slight renewed interest in RISC > machines. alternatve interpretation: old risc designs are cheep to buy and require few transistors so a 32-bit 200mhz cpu can be produced for $3. - erik ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] gsoc2010 + plan9 2010-03-04 21:13 ` ron minnich 2010-03-04 21:45 ` Patrick Kelly @ 2010-03-05 12:13 ` Georg Lehner 1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Georg Lehner @ 2010-03-05 12:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs ron minnich wrote: > ... > I think the opportunities for doing good Plan 9 work on ARM are going > to grow quite a bit. It may well prove a better platform for the > future than PCs, which are increasingly closed and esoteric. > The company i am working for is using ARM processor platforms for industrial mobile panels since StrongARM. The next generation coming out this year is using an OMAP3503. The boards are shipped with VxWork and Windows CE. From the first day on i wished to have a Plan9 (or Inferno) port for them, just for comparison or as a handy terminal. A Beagle Board port would get me started at least with the newer devices ... Regards, Jorge-Le�n ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] gsoc2010 + plan9 2010-03-04 17:39 ` Balwinder S Dheeman 2010-03-04 18:04 ` erik quanstrom 2010-03-04 18:43 ` Chad Brown @ 2010-03-05 1:27 ` geoff 2010-03-05 2:25 ` erik quanstrom 2010-03-08 10:57 ` Balwinder S Dheeman 2 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: geoff @ 2010-03-05 1:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans Can you provide more details of your `ipconfig ra6 recvra 1' failure? What happens? What's printed? What's in /sys/log/v6routeradv (you may have to create it first)? It's not worth supporting any new 10Mb ethernet controllers, and new 100Mb ones are borderline. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] gsoc2010 + plan9 2010-03-05 1:27 ` geoff @ 2010-03-05 2:25 ` erik quanstrom 2010-03-08 10:57 ` Balwinder S Dheeman 1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: erik quanstrom @ 2010-03-05 2:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans On Thu Mar 4 17:15:19 EST 2010, David.Eckhardt@cs.cmu.edu wrote: > > for example, there are a number of 10/100 chipsets that have > > good documentation that's under 100 pages. complete with > > (oh, my) a theory of operation. > > Such as? and On Thu Mar 4 20:28:36 EST 2010, geoff@plan9.bell-labs.com wrote: > It's not worth supporting any new 10Mb ethernet controllers, > and new 100Mb ones are borderline. for the pc architechture, this is certianly true. i would even bias development toward 10 and 40gbe. but for other platforms, i think 10/100 chipsets make a lot of sense today. 10/100 is great for appliance-ish applications/ for example, this is a very interesting bit of hardware (sorry, ron, mips, not arm) http://www.ubiquitistore.com/ls2 an ethernet driver is here https://dev.openwrt.org/browser/trunk/target/linux/atheros/patches-2.6.33/110-ar2313_ethernet.patch?rev=19906 it's a mere 1200 lines, which is just trivial in the linux world so if one were to scare up documentation, it might be quite a dream to program. there were a few others i stumbled on recently. i recall reading the datasheets for a few spi-based chipsets that looked pretty clean. (obviously 10mbps.) - erik ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] gsoc2010 + plan9 2010-03-05 1:27 ` geoff 2010-03-05 2:25 ` erik quanstrom @ 2010-03-08 10:57 ` Balwinder S Dheeman 1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Balwinder S Dheeman @ 2010-03-08 10:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans On 03/05/2010 07:02 AM, geoff@plan9.bell-labs.com wrote: > Can you provide more details of your `ipconfig ra6 recvra 1' failure? > What happens? What's printed? What's in /sys/log/v6routeradv (you > may have to create it first)? cpu% touch /sys/log/v6routeradv cpu% ip/ipconfig -6 cpu% ip/ipconfig ra6 recvra 1 # no errors cpu% tail /sys/log/v6routeradv helix Mar 6 22:47:11 got initial RA from fe80::21d:7dff:fe58:e11f on /net/ether0; pfx 2001:470:19:333:: helix Mar 6 23:24:04 recvra6 on /net/ether0 helix Mar 6 23:24:11 sendrs: sent solicitation to ff02::2 from :: on /net/ether0 helix Mar 6 23:24:11 got initial RA from fe80::21d:7dff:fe58:e11f on /net/ether0; pfx 2001:470:19:333:: helix Mar 6 23:45:01 recvra6 on /net/ether0 helix Mar 6 23:45:08 sendrs: sent solicitation to ff02::2 from :: on /net/ether0 helix Mar 6 23:45:08 got initial RA from fe80::21d:7dff:fe58:e11f on /net/ether0; pfx 2001:470:19:333:: helix Mar 6 23:47:42 recvra6 on /net/ether0 helix Mar 6 23:47:50 sendrs: sent solicitation to ff02::2 from :: on /net/ether0 helix Mar 6 23:47:50 got initial RA from fe80::21d:7dff:fe58:e11f on /net/ether0; pfx 2001:470:19:333:: cpu% cat /net/ipselftab 127.0.0.0 01 6b 192.168.1.0 01 6b ff02::1 02 6m 127.0.0.1 01 6u 192.168.1.9 01 6u 2001:470:19:333:216:3eff:fe79:c0f7 01 6u ff02::1:ff79:c0f7 02 6m fe80::216:3eff:fe79:c0f7 01 6u 127.255.255.255 01 6b 255.255.255.255 02 6b 192.168.1.255 01 6b Everything above seems ok, but... cpu% cat /net/iproute 0.0.0.0 /96 192.168.1.254 4 none - 192.168.1.0 /120 192.168.1.0 4i ifc 0 192.168.1.0 /128 192.168.1.0 4b ifc - 192.168.1.9 /128 192.168.1.9 4u ifc 0 192.168.1.255 /128 192.168.1.255 4b ifc - 127.0.0.0 /104 127.0.0.0 4i ifc - 127.0.0.0 /128 127.0.0.0 4b ifc - 127.0.0.1 /128 127.0.0.1 4u ifc - 127.255.255.255 /128 127.255.255.255 4b ifc - 255.255.255.255 /128 255.255.255.255 4b ifc - 2001:470:19:333:: /64 2001:470:19:333:: 6i ifc - fe80:: /64 fe80:: 6i ifc - ff02:: /16 ff02::1 6m ifc 0 ff02::1 /128 ff02::1 6m ifc 0 2001:470:19:333:216:3eff:fe79:c0f7 /128 2001:470:19:333:216:3eff:fe79:c0f7 6u ifc 0 fe80::216:3eff:fe79:c0f7 /128 fe80::216:3eff:fe79:c0f7 6u ifc 0 ff02::1:ff79:c0f7 /128 ff02::1:ff79:c0f7 6m ifc 0 I think, the above does not have any default route for IPv6 traffic. After restarting Plan9, I attempted to try ipv6on script, but no luck :( cpu% cat /lib/ndb/local # # files comprising the database, use as many as you like, see ndb(6) # database= file=/lib/ndb/local file=/lib/ndb/common auth=sources.cs.bell-labs.com authdom=outside.plan9.bell-labs.com # # because the public demands the name localsource # ip=127.0.0.1 sys=localhost dom=localhost ipnet=sebs.org.in ip=192.168.1.0 ipmask=255.255.255.0 dnsdomain=sebs.org.in dns=192.168.1.3 ntp=router smtp=router authdomain=sebs.org.in auth=auth ip=192.168.1.2 dom=cto.sebs.org.in sys=cto ip=192.168.1.3 dom=mon.sebs.org.in sys=mon ip=192.168.1.9 dom=helix.sebs.org.in sys=helix ip=192.168.1.254 dom=gw0.sebs.org.in sys=gw0 cname=helix.sebs.org.in dom=auth.sebs.org.in sys=auth cname=helix.sebs.org.in dom=cpu.sebs.org.in sys=cpu cname=mon.sebs.org.in dom=devel.sebs.org.in sys=devel cname=cto.sebs.org.in dom=ftp.sebs.org.in sys=ftp cname=mon.sebs.org.in dom=proxy.sebs.org.in sys=proxy cname=mon.sebs.org.in dom=www.sebs.org.in sys=www I can ping xen9 machine from all other machines on private LAN, but can't ip/ping -6 any from xen9 :( Whereas, all other machines, Ubuntu, Windows XP/SP3, FreeBSD and Window-7 are getting IPv6 addresses automatically on a small/home network from an instance of radvd-1:1.5-1 running on a Debian machine. > It's not worth supporting any new 10Mb ethernet controllers, > and new 100Mb ones are borderline. -- Balwinder S "bdheeman" Dheeman Registered Linux User: #229709 Anu'z Linux@HOME (Unix Shoppe) Machines: #168573, 170593, 259192 Chandigarh, UT, 160062, India Plan9, T2, Arch/Debian/FreeBSD/XP Home: http://werc.homelinux.net/ Visit: http://counter.li.org/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-03-08 10:57 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 15+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2010-03-03 23:09 [9fans] gsoc2010 + plan9 Tim Newsham 2010-03-03 23:40 ` David Leimbach 2010-03-04 1:35 ` Venkatesh Srinivas 2010-03-04 17:39 ` Balwinder S Dheeman 2010-03-04 18:04 ` erik quanstrom 2010-03-05 15:39 ` Balwinder S Dheeman 2010-03-04 18:43 ` Chad Brown 2010-03-04 19:05 ` erik quanstrom 2010-03-04 21:13 ` ron minnich 2010-03-04 21:45 ` Patrick Kelly 2010-03-05 2:55 ` erik quanstrom 2010-03-05 12:13 ` Georg Lehner 2010-03-05 1:27 ` geoff 2010-03-05 2:25 ` erik quanstrom 2010-03-08 10:57 ` Balwinder S Dheeman
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).