Old Synopsis: IPv6 packets transmitting only on queue 0
New Synopsis: [ip6] IPv6 packets transmitting only on queue 0
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-net
Responsible-Changed-By: linimon
Responsible-Changed-When: Sat Oct 6 03:29:13 UTC 2012
Responsible-Changed-Why:
Over to maint
The following reply was made to PR kern/172364; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Mark Atkinson
To: Navdeep Parhar
Cc: bug-follo...@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: kern/172364: [cxbge] cxbge_vlan_config() Fatal trap 12: page
fault while in kernel mode
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 11:32:01 -0700
-BEGIN
The following reply was made to PR kern/172364; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Navdeep Parhar
To: bug-follo...@freebsd.org, atkin...@gmail.com
Cc:
Subject: Re: kern/172364: [cxbge] cxbge_vlan_config() Fatal trap 12: page
fault while in kernel mode
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 10:41:56 -0700
Her
Synopsis: [cxgb] Driver must be loaded after boot due to timing issues checking
for kern.ipc.nmb* values set via /boot/loader.conf
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-net->np
Responsible-Changed-By: linimon
Responsible-Changed-When: Fri Oct 5 17:23:14 UTC 2012
Responsible-Changed-Why:
by reques
Old Synopsis: cxbge_vlan_config() Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode
New Synopsis: [cxbge] cxbge_vlan_config() Fatal trap 12: page fault while in
kernel mode
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-net
Responsible-Changed-By: linimon
Responsible-Changed-When: Fri Oct 5 16:4
On Thursday, October 04, 2012 11:44:02 pm lini...@freebsd.org wrote:
> Old Synopsis: ale driver msix setup typo
> New Synopsis: [ale] [patch] ale driver msix setup typo
>
> Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-net
> Responsible-Changed-By: linimon
> Responsible-Changed-When: Fri Oct
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 05:05:16PM +0200, Ermal Lu?i wrote:
E> > E> speaking of pf(4) side of things please do not loose the VIMAGE calls!
E> >
E> > Yeah, can you explain please why do we need them here? The pfil hooks
E> > are always run already in some defined VNET context, don't they?
E> >
E>
E
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> Ermal,
>
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 03:01:38PM +0200, Ermal Lu?i wrote:
> E> it would be better to switch to net byte order allover rather than
> E> trade one for the other.
> E> This makes it even more tricky to understand the code than it i
W dniu 2012-10-05 16:22, Dominic Blais pisze:
Hi,
I'm using GENERIC. Everything else is added as loaded module.
Here's my kldstat:
I forgot about modules, here they are:
Id Refs AddressSize Name
1 13 0x8020 12200c8 kernel
21 0x81421000 215f8g
Hi,
I'm using GENERIC. Everything else is added as loaded module.
Here's my kldstat:
Id Refs AddressSize Name
1 34 0x8020 11cdab0 kernel
21 0x81412000 2a134pf.ko
32 0x8143d000 c16e ipfw.ko
41 0x8144a000 a079 dummy
On 05.10.2012 15:47, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
Hello,
once the pfil(9) API was introduced in FreeBSD, our main packet filter,
the ipfw(4) worked in host byte order, that's why the pfil(9) API was
violated: the AF_INET hooks were entered with packet in host byte order.
Moreover, when we put
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> Ermal,
>
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 03:01:38PM +0200, Ermal Lu?i wrote:
> E> it would be better to switch to net byte order allover rather than
> E> trade one for the other.
> E> This makes it even more tricky to understand the code than it
Ermal,
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 03:01:38PM +0200, Ermal Lu?i wrote:
E> it would be better to switch to net byte order allover rather than
E> trade one for the other.
E> This makes it even more tricky to understand the code than it is.
E> If you do the work its better to do the full thing in one s
Hello Gleb,
it would be better to switch to net byte order allover rather than
trade one for the other.
This makes it even more tricky to understand the code than it is.
If you do the work its better to do the full thing in one shot and
switch to netbyte order.
speaking of pf(4) side of things pl
W dniu 2012-10-05 14:23, Vadim Urazaev pisze:
I don`t know if it`s important, anyway I have only one routing table on
server where this issue happens.
Maybe we should check our kernel configuration to find something similar in
it.
For example I have
options ZERO_COPY_SOCKETS
_
I don`t know if it`s important, anyway I have only one routing table on
server where this issue happens.
Maybe we should check our kernel configuration to find something similar in
it.
For example I have
options ZERO_COPY_SOCKETS
___
freebsd-net@freeb
Hello,
once the pfil(9) API was introduced in FreeBSD, our main packet filter,
the ipfw(4) worked in host byte order, that's why the pfil(9) API was
violated: the AF_INET hooks were entered with packet in host byte order.
If you look into pfil(9) manpage you'll see that it still declares
op
17 matches
Mail list logo
