On 07/26/11 08:05, Gary Palmer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 06:53:59AM -0500, Paul Keusemann wrote:
Again, sorry for the sluggish response.
On 07/20/11 15:15, Gary Palmer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 02:26:34PM -0500, Paul Keusemann wrote:
On 07/07/11 14:39, Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Jul 7,
Synopsis: [lagg][patch] Take lagg rlock before checking flags
State-Changed-From-To: open->patched
State-Changed-By: maxim
State-Changed-When: Tue Jul 26 14:52:18 UTC 2011
State-Changed-Why:
thompsa@ has committed the patch to HEAD in r223846.
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=156978
__
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:09:09AM +0100, Robert N. M. Watson wrote:
>
> On 25 Jul 2011, at 12:00, Daan Vreeken wrote:
>
> > Couldn't the dangling pointer problem be solved by adding a 'generation'
> > field
> > to the mbuf structure?
> > The 'generation' could be a system-wide number that gets
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 06:53:59AM -0500, Paul Keusemann wrote:
> Again, sorry for the sluggish response.
>
> On 07/20/11 15:15, Gary Palmer wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 02:26:34PM -0500, Paul Keusemann wrote:
> >>On 07/07/11 14:39, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> >>>On Jul 7, 2011, at 4:45 AM, Paul Ke
Again, sorry for the sluggish response.
On 07/20/11 15:15, Gary Palmer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 02:26:34PM -0500, Paul Keusemann wrote:
On 07/07/11 14:39, Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Jul 7, 2011, at 4:45 AM, Paul Keusemann wrote:
My setup is something like this:
- My local network is a mix o
Once again, apologies for my sluggish response. The VPN problem is a
background job worked on when I can or when I'm too annoyed by it to do
anything else.
On 07/12/11 17:42, Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:26 PM, Paul Keusemann wrote:
So, any other ideas on how to debug this?
Ga
On 25 Jul 2011, at 12:00, Daan Vreeken wrote:
> Couldn't the dangling pointer problem be solved by adding a 'generation'
> field
> to the mbuf structure?
> The 'generation' could be a system-wide number that gets incremented whenever
> an interface is removed. The mbuf* functions could keep a
On 07/23/11 04:21, Bruce Evans wrote:
C didn't support support variable-sized structs before C99, and
doesn't really support them now. Various hacks are used to make
pseudo-structs larger or smaller than ones that can actually be
declared work. The above is one. The pseudo-struct is malloc()e
