On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 08:23:46PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 08:15:31PM +0100, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> > > This is really interesting. What NIC's do you use?
> > Both (linux box and hurd box) have rtl8139 chips.
> Same here.
Aha! That helps a lot. Fortunately Donald
At Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:30:14 +0100,
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> It's hard to believe you get no package loss in GNU Mach 1. Do you flood
> the GNU/Hurd box from a GNU/Linux box? I have seen horrible package loss in
> that situation, which was much better with GNUMach v2.
I think that's not because
> This is really interesting. What NIC's do you use?
Both (linux box and hurd box) have rtl8139 chips.
daniel
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 08:15:31PM +0100, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> > This is really interesting. What NIC's do you use?
>
> Both (linux box and hurd box) have rtl8139 chips.
Same here.
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' GNU http://www.gnu.org[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Marcus Brinkmann
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 01:04:44PM +0100, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It's hard to believe you get no package loss in GNU Mach 1. Do you flood
> > the GNU/Hurd box from a GNU/Linux box? I have seen horrible package loss in
> > that situation, which was m
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's hard to believe you get no package loss in GNU Mach 1. Do you flood
> the GNU/Hurd box from a GNU/Linux box? I have seen horrible package loss in
> that situation, which was much better with GNUMach v2.
I see the same situation here. When I fl
Joachim Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In comparison to what else is missing in the Hurd right now it is
> surely a bit unimportant. And I don't mean to belittle your work
> in any way!
No offense taken.
> I don't think your patch is wrong - it looks quite good actually.
> It might just b
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 12:30:14PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 01:44:36AM +0100, Joachim Nilsson wrote:
> > When I flood ping GNUmach2 I get 1% loss and no package loss with
> > GNUmach1. Maybe we can spur some interest in tuning these numbers
> > a bit?
> It's hard to
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:14:45AM +0100, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> Joachim Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > When I flood ping GNUmach2 I get 1% loss and no package loss with
> > GNUmach1. Maybe we can spur some interest in tuning these numbers
> > a bit?
> Hmm, I don't know if this very impor
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 01:44:36AM +0100, Joachim Nilsson wrote:
>
> PING 192.168.1.4 (192.168.1.4): 56 data bytes
> 64 bytes from 192.168.1.4: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=2.0 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.1.4: icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=5.1 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.1.4: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=4.2 ms
> 6
Joachim Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When I flood ping GNUmach2 I get 1% loss and no package loss with
> GNUmach1. Maybe we can spur some interest in tuning these numbers
> a bit?
Hmm, I don't know if this very important. The TCP/IP protocol handles
very well any packet loss :) I rath
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 10:24:05PM +0100, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> [snip]
> I've tested the patch and the kernel is quite stable and didn't see
> any panic under have net last (ping -f).
Daniel, you're awsome! :-)
I've tested it too and it works great with the OSKit from Savannah.
Even when I had
Hello
At the moment the softint handler is called from softclock handler.
This leads to a panic which I have reported here [1].
The main idea of this patch is that the softint handler should be
called directly from spl0 and splx_cli. The invariant is that only
after all outstanding hardware in
13 matches
Mail list logo
