Hi Julian Elischer!
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:31:12 -0700; Julian Elischer wrote about 'Re: [HEADS
UP!] IPFW Ideas: possible SoC 2008 candidate':
>>> here are some of my ideas for ipfw changes:
>>
>>> 1/ redo locking so that packets do not have to get locks on the
>>> structure... I have several
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:00:49PM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 04:58:47AM +, Stef Walter wrote:
> > Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> > > I have seen this bug in other ATA RAID implementations (VIA & Promise)
> > > too. From what I can tell this part of your patch is general
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 04:58:47AM +, Stef Walter wrote:
> Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> > I have seen this bug in other ATA RAID implementations (VIA & Promise)
> > too. From what I can tell this part of your patch is general to all ATA
> > RAID arrays, right?
>
> Yes, a small part. The part tha
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008, Stef Walter wrote:
> Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> > I have seen this bug in other ATA RAID implementations (VIA &
> > Promise) too. From what I can tell this part of your patch is
> > general to all ATA RAID arrays, right?
>
> Yes, a small part. The part that will write out the RAI
Vadim Goncharov wrote:
Hi Julian Elischer!
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:53:44 -0700; Julian Elischer wrote about 'Re: [HEADS
UP!] IPFW Ideas: possible SoC 2008 candidate':
here are some of my ideas for ipfw changes:
1/ redo locking so that packets do not have to get locks on the
structure... I
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Vadim Goncharov wrote:
>
> Looked at the patch. Some line are changed e.g. in NAT definitions without any
> visible changes, strange.
>
> Also, you're adding 7 opcode in the kernel, 2 for match and 5 for setting,
> while having single "modip" action in userland. In the case of significantly
> chang
Folks,
are there any plans to rewrite the ports/packages system? Maybe someone
started work on improving things in this area already?
The thought that pkg_* tools and Mk/* scripts might be somewhat
inefficient had crossed my mind before, when at last modular Xorg
exposed all the inefficienc
Hi Julian Elischer!
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:53:44 -0700; Julian Elischer wrote about 'Re: [HEADS
UP!] IPFW Ideas: possible SoC 2008 candidate':
> here are some of my ideas for ipfw changes:
> 1/ redo locking so that packets do not have to get locks on the
> structure... I have several ideas on
Hi Marcelo Araujo!
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:53:26 -0300; Marcelo Araujo wrote about 'Re: [HEADS UP!]
IPFW Ideas: possible SoC 2008 candidate':
>> 2.5. Just to mention: modip, counter limits, fragments.
>>
>> These patches are already currently discussed in ipfw@, but included
>> here just to not
10 matches
Mail list logo
