On 2007/02/28, at 20:33, Max Laier wrote:
So, I am contemplating adding to rtsock.c the ability to
send these types of events up. I am thinking on adding
this there for two reasons..
a) SCTP already hooks into the routing socket to get
interface changes.
and
b) It may well be a relevant f
On Mar 1, 2007, at 11:40 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote:
Andrew Gallatin wrote:
Andre Oppermann writes:
> This patch solves the problem by maintaining an offset pointer
in the socket
> buffer to give tcp_output() the closest mbuf right away
avoiding the traversal
> from the beginning.
> > W
N.J. Mann wrote:
Could this be why mail from cron doesn't work for me in 6.2? I got as
far as finding that cron receives a SIGPIPE while sending the mail
message to sendmail, but never worked out why. I ended up hacking cron
to ignore SIGPIPE and then ENOTIME to investigate further.
Unlikely,
On Thursday, 1 March, 2007 at 17:34:50 +, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
> Anton Yuzhaninov wrote:
> >
> >Thanks, with send() it works fine.
> >I think it should be documented in setsockopt(2).
> Try this patch. The comment doesn't reflect what the code does. SIGPIPE
> may actually be getting queued
Anton Yuzhaninov wrote:
Works for me.
Committed, thanks for finding this bug.
BMS
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Thursday, March 1, 2007, 8:34:50 PM, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
BMS> Anton Yuzhaninov wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, with send() it works fine.
>> I think it should be documented in setsockopt(2).
BMS> Try this patch. The comment doesn't reflect what the code does. SIGPIPE
BMS> may actually be getting queued t
Anton Yuzhaninov wrote:
Thanks, with send() it works fine.
I think it should be documented in setsockopt(2).
Try this patch. The comment doesn't reflect what the code does. SIGPIPE
may actually be getting queued twice in your case. It is most likely
that the process's main thread wasn't preemp
Anton Yuzhaninov wrote:
RE> It works, but only if you use send() instead of write().
RE> Alternatively, you can control the behavior on a per
RE> message basis, by passing the MSG_NOSIGNAL in the "flags"
RE> argument to the send() call (without having to set a
RE> socket option).
Thanks, with se
Thursday, March 1, 2007, 6:29:42 PM, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
RE> On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 03:17:29PM +0300, Anton Yuzhaninov wrote:
>> Is SO_NOSIGPIPE work?
>>
>> It try to set on socket option SO_NOSIGPIPE but anyway process
>> received sigpipe.
>>
RE> It works, but only if you use send() instead
Andrew Gallatin wrote:
Andre Oppermann writes:
> This patch solves the problem by maintaining an offset pointer in the socket
> buffer to give tcp_output() the closest mbuf right away avoiding the
traversal
> from the beginning.
>
> With this patch we should be able to compete nicely for t
Andre Oppermann writes:
> This patch solves the problem by maintaining an offset pointer in the socket
> buffer to give tcp_output() the closest mbuf right away avoiding the
> traversal
> from the beginning.
>
> With this patch we should be able to compete nicely for the Internet land
> s
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 06:08:21PM +0300, dima wrote:
> d> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 02:28:13PM +0300, dima wrote:
> d> > d> I'm trying to make CARP working on a 2-Xeon hardware. It worked OK on
> 5.5, but not on 6.2.
> d> > d> The result of compiling both
> d> > d> options SMP
> d> > d> device
Hi Anton,
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 03:17:29PM +0300, Anton Yuzhaninov wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Is SO_NOSIGPIPE work?
>
> It try to set on socket option SO_NOSIGPIPE but anyway process
> received sigpipe.
>
It works, but only if you use send() instead of write().
Alternatively, you can control the beh
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 06:08:21PM +0300, dima wrote:
d> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 02:28:13PM +0300, dima wrote:
d> > d> I'm trying to make CARP working on a 2-Xeon hardware. It worked OK on
5.5, but not on 6.2.
d> > d> The result of compiling both
d> > d> options SMP
d> > d> device carp
d> > d
buffer to give tcp_output() the closest mbuf right away avoiding the
traversal from the beginning.
With this patch we should be able to compete nicely for the Internet land
speed record again.
The patch is here:
http://people.freebsd.org/~andre/sockbuf_sndptr-20070301.diff
Any testing
away avoiding the traversal
from the beginning.
With this patch we should be able to compete nicely for the Internet land
speed record again.
The patch is here:
http://people.freebsd.org/~andre/sockbuf_sndptr-20070301.diff
Any testing, especially on 10Gig cards, and feedback appreciated.
--
Andre
Andre Oppermann wrote:
I have some WIP here too. I'll send it to you later this afternoon.
Thanks, I look forward to seeing it, re Issue #2 IP_SENDSRCADDR.
Dealing with dhclient is a separate issue -- here, something like
IP_SENDIF needs to be introduced, as we are truly in an 'ip unnumbere
Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
Bruce M Simpson wrote:
Hello,
In preparation for tightening up our handling of INADDR_BROADCAST
sends, I ran some brief tests today on the network stack with the
attached test code.
I found some inconsistencies when run against 6.2-RELEASE;
1. IP_ONESBCAST breaks if
Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
Bruce M Simpson wrote:
Much network code needs to know if the mbuf it is looking at is using
a cluster. I propose putting M_HASCL() in sys/mbuf.h. I realise this
is a style change, however, it seems to be a very common idiom.
I sent this, then I looked at NetBSD, having
Hello.
Is SO_NOSIGPIPE work?
It try to set on socket option SO_NOSIGPIPE but anyway process
received sigpipe.
Test case:
#include
#include
#include
#include
#define SERVER_PORT 8000
void
sigpipe(int signo __unused)
{
printf("SIGPIPE recivied\n");
}
int
main(int argc, char *argv
Bruce M Simpson wrote:
Hello,
In preparation for tightening up our handling of INADDR_BROADCAST
sends, I ran some brief tests today on the network stack with the
attached test code.
I found some inconsistencies when run against 6.2-RELEASE;
1. IP_ONESBCAST breaks if SO_DONTROUTE is specifie
Yesterday I try to install a python module after a 'portsnap fetch
update', during the install python upgrade from version 2.4.3,1 to 2.4.4,1.
python-2.4.3,1 The "meta-port" for the stable version of Python interprete
vs
python-2.4.4,1 [...]
since these upgrade my zope (zope29-2.9.6) won't s
On 17/02/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi
>
> is there any way how to limit packet per second [PPS] rate to
> specified
> IP (group of IP) ? Linux can achieve this via IPtables.
> I`ve searched a lot of web, but nothing interesting found (for PF,
> IPFilter, and IPFW).
>
I a
Bruce M Simpson wrote:
Much network code needs to know if the mbuf it is looking at is using
a cluster. I propose putting M_HASCL() in sys/mbuf.h. I realise this
is a style change, however, it seems to be a very common idiom.
I sent this, then I looked at NetBSD, having caught a glimpse of their
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 11:24:07AM +0100, Antonio Tommasi wrote:
> Hi to all,
> i want to know if it is possibile in my firewall.conf refer to an
> external file where for example i indicate my source ip or/and my
> destination ip of my rules.
this is not supported directly in /sbin/ipfw, becaus
Hi to all,
i want to know if it is possibile in my firewall.conf refer to an
external file where for example i indicate my source ip or/and my
destination ip of my rules.
Thanks in advance
Antonio
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.
26 matches
Mail list logo
