The following reply was made to PR kern/116837; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: KUROSAWA Takahiro
To: bug-follo...@freebsd.org, jkpyvxm...@mailinator.com
Cc:
Subject: Re: kern/116837: [tun] [panic] [patch] ifconfig tunX destroy: panic
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:42:00 +0900
This is fixed on r
Old Synopsis: kernel panic in hfsc_dequeue
New Synopsis: [altq] [panic] kernel panic in hfsc_dequeue
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-net
Responsible-Changed-By: linimon
Responsible-Changed-When: Tue Feb 17 01:09:02 UTC 2009
Responsible-Changed-Why:
Over to maintainer(s).
http:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Watson wrote:
> Network device drivers intimately tangled with the old TTY code:
>
> if_cx
> if_ppp
> lf_sl
The old TTY code appears to be the reason that the bluetooth/ng_h4
driver was "abandoned". Not having investigated further, I do
Synopsis: [re] re0: watchdog timeout (missed Tx interrupts) -- recovering
State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback
State-Changed-By: yongari
State-Changed-When: Mon Feb 16 23:59:15 UTC 2009
State-Changed-Why:
Would you try latest re(4) in HEAD(r188474)? Copying if_re.c,
if_rl.c and if_rlreg.h from H
Robert Watson wrote:
(Bcc to arch@)
On Mon, 26 May 2008, Robert Watson wrote:
Just to keep track of things:
http://wiki.freebsd.org/NONMPSAFE_DEORBIT
Delayed by about six months, the merge and switch to the new USB stack
in 8.x means that we're now fairly close to being able to pick up t
The following reply was made to PR kern/131738; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Bruce Cran
To: Trevor Roydhouse
Cc: bug-follo...@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: kern/131738: [re] re0: watchdog timeout (missed Tx interrupts)
-- recovering
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:53:03 +
I also saw this messag
(Bcc to arch@)
On Mon, 26 May 2008, Robert Watson wrote:
Just to keep track of things:
http://wiki.freebsd.org/NONMPSAFE_DEORBIT
Delayed by about six months, the merge and switch to the new USB stack in 8.x
means that we're now fairly close to being able to pick up this project again.
Th
Hi folks,
I'm having trouble using NAT and forward in the same ipfw ruleset. It
appears that the forward "wins" over the NAT regardless of ordering in
the ipwf ruleset. I'm hoping that I'm missing something obvious; but is
there a way to use these two together?
Some background - I'm testin
Note: to view an individual PR, use:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=(number).
The following is a listing of current problems submitted by FreeBSD users.
These represent problem reports covering all versions including
experimental development code and obsolete releases.
S Tracker
Synopsis: [re] re0: watchdog timeout (missed Tx interrupts) -- recovering
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-net
Responsible-Changed-By: linimon
Responsible-Changed-When: Mon Feb 16 09:53:32 UTC 2009
Responsible-Changed-Why:
Over to maintainer(s).
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query
10 matches
Mail list logo