This is a substantial change to the EM driver that I would
appreciate some testing and feedback on.
You just replace the two files in your STABLE tree. Its big
enough that this seemed easier than a patch.
Whats in this:
A change Mike Silbersack came up with, it makes the
watchdog period twice as
Eh, what I see is if_em.h and if_em.c, does the version
that came thru not have both??
Jack
On 11/1/07, Pete French <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You just replace the two files in your STABLE tree. Its big
> > enough that this seemed easier than a patch.
>
> Did you miss a file ? I nly see a ne
> Eh, what I see is if_em.h and if_em.c, does the version
> that came thru not have both??
Nope, it's only got if_em.h in it - I just took a look at
the actual mime stuff in the email and tere is only one
attachment in the version I received.
-pete.
___
> You just replace the two files in your STABLE tree. Its big
> enough that this seemed easier than a patch.
Did you miss a file ? I nly see a new header file in here. Am keen to
try this out though...
-pcf.
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http
Hi,
I'm seeing strange problem with sockets in state FIN_WAIT_2.
netstat -n |grep FIN_WAIT_2|wc -l
shows 12234 lines, Those sockets never die and just grow more and more,
when finally today I saw this in logs:
postfix/smtp[6968]: connect to gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com[66.249.91.27]:
Can't assig
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 09:53:56AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> It's possible using ipfw to mostly implement this, and with an upcoming
> change, possible to completely implement this.
>
> the "uid" function of ipfw can act as a "does there exist a socket to which
> this packet would go?" tes
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Jack Vogel wrote:
Another bit of data, if I define DEVICE_POLLING on the Oct. snap it
also will work.
Defining DEVICE_POLLING (globally) breaks configuration of "fast"
interrupt handlers in em. I have to #undef it to test "fast" interrupt
handlers in em without losing tes
Hi,
Jack Vogel wrote:
Vladimir,
Your one phrase "more or less patched" invalidated the whole
data point. We are talking about code thats checked in and bound
for 6.3 :)
Oops. I've got it. Maybe we talk about different kinds of watchdog. I
have meant TX queue watchdogs.
Yes, there is a pr
