On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 01:02:09 -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> "Kenneth D. Merry" wrote:
> > If the receive ring for that packet size is full, it will hold off on
> > DMAs. If all receive rings are full, there's no reason to send more
> > interrupts.
>
> I think that this does nothing, in the Fr
On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> > I need to look at it again.. (I figured I just didn't have the time to try
> > understand it all AND do the rest of the kernel.) Of course the best woudl
> > be if Mr. Popov did the conversion but I believe he's incredibly busy at
> > the moment.. Cer
On Sun, 2001/10/14 at 21:38:26 +0100, Ian Dowse wrote:
> >
> >The last one is a know problem. There is a (unfinished) patch available to
> >solve this problem. Thomas Moestl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is still working on
> >some issues of the patch. Please contact him if you like to know more.
> >
> >Her
From: Mitsuru IWASAKI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 00:46:57 +0900 (JST)
::Hi, Intel folks. I've just found the bug in rsutils.c which double
::free(); AcpiUtRemoveReference() and ACPI_MEM_FREE(). Here is a fix.
::
::Index: rsutils.c
::===
You have been invited to check out this adult site
by one of your friends who visited us.
click here , our URL is: http://www.openxxx.net/
enjoy,
OpenXXX TEAM 2001
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
>
>The last one is a know problem. There is a (unfinished) patch available to
>solve this problem. Thomas Moestl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is still working on
>some issues of the patch. Please contact him if you like to know more.
>
>Here is the URL for the patch:
>
>http://home.teleport.ch/freebsd/user
Hi,
> One more problem is in nfsd, if I set it to use udp only it starts
> eating all cpu cycles it can get,but only the master process. Trussing
> the process shows no system calls whatsoever being performed.
The last one is a know problem. There is a (unfinished) patch available to
solve this
Actually, I've also noticed problems in FreeBSD-current also- ls and
reads work, but things like mkdir hang. Here's the tcpdump output:
Script started on Sun Oct 14 12:21:50 2001
quarm.feral.com > root tcpdump -vv -i fxp0 host antares
tcpdump: listening on fxp0
12:21:58.498568 antares.12940256
Paul van der Zwan wrote:
> If I run snoop on Solaris I see a getattr request being sent and
> an answer being received but apparently it gets ignored by Solaris.
> This happens on both Sol x86 and Sparc ( both with MU5 installed)
Please do a tcpdump, and examine it; I suspect you will find
that y
I tried to install latest 5-current via ftp. However, when sysinstall
fetches all bin distribution, following dialog (sorry, I've forget to
copy a screenshot) is shown:
User Confirmation Requested
Unable to transfer the bin distribution from ...
Do you want to try to ret
Riccardo Torrini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would be a great idea add /dev/uphoto and even better a sort
> of photo-file-system, where read is mapped to download image,
> unlink to delete and maybe create file to take a picture so
> we can use ls, cp, rm and touch to access photo camera...
Hi, Intel folks. I've just found the bug in rsutils.c which double
free(); AcpiUtRemoveReference() and ACPI_MEM_FREE(). Here is a fix.
Index: rsutils.c
===
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/contrib/dev/acpica/rsutils.c,v
retrieving revi
Over than an year ago (9.9.2000) I submitted a pr (kern/21154)
to ask renaming from actual *_saver.ko to saver_*.ko of saver
modules to uniform names under /boot/kernel as sound (snd_*),
interfaces (if_*), splash (splash_*) and netgraph (ng_*).
I tryed to figure where are used and I found only /e
Hi all,
From: Brian Somers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 01:15:38 +0100
::Hi,
::
::I was wondering if anybody has any suggestions about why this might
::be happening in -current:
::pccbb1: irq 0 at device 10.1 on pci0
::pccbb1: PCI Memory allocated: 10001000
::acpi_pcib0: possible
I am using -current box as a homedir server for my Solaris clients and
have noticed a wierd problem.
When I login my homedir gets mounted ok but when I type ls -l it just
waits until I ^C it.
If I run snoop on Solaris I see a getattr request being sent and
an answer being received but apparently
Mike Silbersack wrote:
> Hm, true, I guess the improvement is respectable. My thought is mostly
> that I'm not sure how much it's extending the performance range of a
> system; testing with more varied packet loads as suggested by Alfred would
> help tell us the answer to this.
I didn't respond
On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Mike Silbersack wrote:
>
> One issue to be careful of here is that the removal of the
> tcptmpl actually causes a performance hit that wasn't there
> in the 4.3 code. My original complaint about tcptmpl taking
> up 256 instead of 60 bytes stands, but
17 matches
Mail list logo
