Synopsis: [wpi] driver fails to attach on a fujitsu-siemens s7110
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-i386->freebsd-net
Responsible-Changed-By: remko
Responsible-Changed-When: Wed Mar 19 22:55:47 UTC 2008
Responsible-Changed-Why:
This is somethin network related.
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/quer
The following reply was made to PR kern/118975; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Thomas_Nystr=F6m?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Benjamin Close <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: kern/118975: [bge] [patch] Broadcom 5906 not handled by FreeBSD
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 2
On March 19, 2008 01:56 pm you wrote:
> Freddie Cash wrote:
> > On March 19, 2008 01:43 pm Freddie Cash wrote:
> >> On March 19, 2008 01:34 pm Freddie Cash wrote:
> >>> Just curious if the following rule will work correctly. It is
> >>> accepted by the ipfw command. In the process of working out
On March 19, 2008 01:47 pm you wrote:
> Freddie Cash wrote:
> > Just curious if the following rule will work correctly. It is
> > accepted by the ipfw command. In the process of working out a test
> > for it, but thought I'd ask here as well, just to be sure.
> >
> > ipfw add { tcp or udp } from
Freddie Cash wrote:
On March 19, 2008 01:43 pm Freddie Cash wrote:
On March 19, 2008 01:34 pm Freddie Cash wrote:
Just curious if the following rule will work correctly. It is
accepted by the ipfw command. In the process of working out a test
for it, but thought I'd ask here as well, just to
Freddie Cash wrote:
Just curious if the following rule will work correctly. It is accepted by
the ipfw command. In the process of working out a test for it, but
thought I'd ask here as well, just to be sure.
ipfw add { tcp or udp } from me to any 53 out xmit fxp0
ipfw add { tcp or udp }
On March 19, 2008 01:43 pm Freddie Cash wrote:
> On March 19, 2008 01:34 pm Freddie Cash wrote:
> > Just curious if the following rule will work correctly. It is
> > accepted by the ipfw command. In the process of working out a test
> > for it, but thought I'd ask here as well, just to be sure.
>
On March 19, 2008 01:34 pm Freddie Cash wrote:
> Just curious if the following rule will work correctly. It is accepted
> by the ipfw command. In the process of working out a test for it, but
> thought I'd ask here as well, just to be sure.
>
> ipfw add { tcp or udp } from me to any 53 out xm
Freddie Cash wrote:
I'm just curious if there is any information available on how quickly ipfw
processes rules, and whether or not a long list of ports in a single rule
makes things faster or slower?
Just curious if there is a big difference between:
ipfw add allow tcp from any to me 22,25,80
Just curious if the following rule will work correctly. It is accepted by
the ipfw command. In the process of working out a test for it, but
thought I'd ask here as well, just to be sure.
ipfw add { tcp or udp } from me to any 53 out xmit fxp0
ipfw add { tcp or udp } from any 53 to me
I'm just curious if there is any information available on how quickly ipfw
processes rules, and whether or not a long list of ports in a single rule
makes things faster or slower?
Just curious if there is a big difference between:
ipfw add allow tcp from any to me 22,25,80,110,143,443,1 in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sean C. Farley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ah! I tried it again at 10Mb without setting it to full-duplex, and
> it worked. Out of curiosity, is it normal that 100Mb will default to
> full-duplex yet 10Mb will not, or is it dependent on the hardwa
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, David DeSimone wrote:
Sean C. Farley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
An ICMP test showed that there were occasional pauses and packet
loss. The fix: use 100Mb instead of 10Mb. :) For some reason I do
not recall, I had forced the interface connected to the DSL router to
10Mb.
Synopsis: 6.3 kernel panic in swi1: net
State-Changed-From-To: open->suspended
State-Changed-By: vwe
State-Changed-When: Wed Mar 19 12:39:19 UTC 2008
State-Changed-Why:
Suspend for now until Edwin is able to reproduce this.
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=121774
_
The following reply was made to PR kern/118975; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Benjamin Close <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: kern/118975: [bge] [patch] Broadcom 5906 not handled by FreeBSD
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:51:16 +1030
Hi Thomas,
A
Yousif Hassan wrote:
Benjamin Close wrote:
Sam Leffler wrote:
Yousif Hassan wrote:
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 08:06 +1030, Benjamin Close wrote:
The slightly wonky:
- As reported by someone else:
wpi0: timeout resetting Tx ring 1
wpi0: timeout resetting Tx ring 3
wpi0: timeout resetting
Synopsis: [wpi] if_wpi.ko fails to load on a Toshiba Satellite Pro P100-439
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-net->benjsc
Responsible-Changed-By: benjsc
Responsible-Changed-When: Wed Mar 19 12:15:00 UTC 2008
Responsible-Changed-Why:
Over to maintainer
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?p
Old Synopsis: [tty] [panic] panic in sys/kern/tty_subr.c putc()
New Synopsis: [if_ppp] [tty] [panic] if_ppp panic in sys/kern/tty_subr.c putc()
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-net
Responsible-Changed-By: gavin
Responsible-Changed-When: Wed Mar 19 10:22:10 UTC 2008
Responsible-Ch
Synopsis: [if_ppp] Page fault while in kernel mode. Supervisor read, page not
present.
State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
State-Changed-By: gavin
State-Changed-When: Wed Mar 19 10:21:41 UTC 2008
State-Changed-Why:
On second thoughts, close this, as a duplicate of kern/95288
http://www.freebsd.
Old Synopsis: Page fault while in kernel mode. Supervisor read, page not
present.
New Synopsis: [if_ppp] Page fault while in kernel mode. Supervisor read, page
not present.
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-i386->freebsd-net
Responsible-Changed-By: gavin
Responsible-Changed-When: Wed Mar 19 0
20 matches
Mail list logo
