On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
>
>
> Greerings,
>
> I am currently running 9.1-RC2 on my laptop, and I'm wondering what the
> proper procedure is for reporting bugs in not-yet-released releases.
> Could somebody please tell me? Should I just file a regular PR? (I've
Greerings,
I am currently running 9.1-RC2 on my laptop, and I'm wondering what the
proper procedure is for reporting bugs in not-yet-released releases.
Could somebody please tell me? Should I just file a regular PR? (I've
never done this before for anything that's not an official -RELEASE,
and
On 16 October 2012 05:38, John Baldwin wrote:
> I don't follow how this is related to this thread at all (which has more to do
> with ixgbe scheduling duplicate work). However, is your issue that the stack
> locks (e.g. socket and protocol layer locks) are held across
> if_start/if_transmit?
It
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:35:55PM +0200, Mariano Cediel wrote:
> How do I create, from a physical interface, n virtual interfaces, but
> all effects are real, their MAC different, on which we can do
> individually NAT, etc, etc.?
>
> I need one external interface has 2 public IPs, and I'll do ever
I am currently working on a fix for kern/152791 (Tahi IPv6 Ready Logo
test case #169: Redirected On-link). I have a change to add the host
route, and it works for test case 169. However, the route never gets
removed, so all subsequent test cases fail (because they first verify
that the Node U
How do I create, from a physical interface, n virtual interfaces, but
all effects are real, their MAC different, on which we can do
individually NAT, etc, etc.?
I need one external interface has 2 public IPs, and I'll do every NAT
over every (with ipfw and divert)
individually (each of them has i
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 8:46:49 am Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
> On 15.10.2012 22:14, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Monday, October 15, 2012 12:32:10 pm Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 09:04:27AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> >> J> > 3) in practice taskqueue routine is a nightm
Hi all,
I need to add this option to kernel in order to defeating Nmap
OS-Fingerprinting. My system is running as Web Server and also it is the
gateway on the network.
I want to know if setting this option has any side effects on other parts
of the system? Is there any situation that SYN and FIN
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> Can you please provide hints how can SIOCADDMULTI lead to obtaining RX
> lock in the stock driver?
It doesn't. But it does acquire the core lock, and the core lock is
acquired before the RX lock (in ixgbe_init, for instance).
__
On Monday, October 15, 2012 6:36:57 pm Adrian Chadd wrote:
> The reason why I've started moving net80211 and ath _away_ from using
> direct dispatch (for now) and to using a taskqueue for TX (and RX) is
> because it's too freaking annoying right now to deal with all the
> crazy long-held locks to g
On 15.10.2012 22:14, John Baldwin wrote:
On Monday, October 15, 2012 12:32:10 pm Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 09:04:27AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
J> > 3) in practice taskqueue routine is a nightmare for many people since
J> > there is no way to stop "kernel {ix0 que}" thread ea
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 08:40:47AM -0400, Ryan Stone wrote:
R> > Are you using stock ixgbe driver?
R>
R> Pay no attention to the line numbers behind the curtain. :)
R>
R> I don't believe that I've changed the locking order at all in the
R> driver, but you are right, that wasn't taken from the sto
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Alexander V. Chernikov
wrote:
> Are you using stock ixgbe driver?
Pay no attention to the line numbers behind the curtain. :)
I don't believe that I've changed the locking order at all in the
driver, but you are right, that wasn't taken from the stock driver.
___
On 16.10.2012 00:48, Ryan Stone wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
To me this unlock/lock looks like a legacy from times, when the driver
had a single mutex for both TX and RX parts.
And removing this re-locking in foo_rxeof() was one of the aims for separate
TX/RX l
I was reported this behaviour before.
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/157796
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Krzysztof Barcikowski
wrote:
> 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
15 matches
Mail list logo