Infiniband list available

2012-11-09 Thread Garrett Cooper
Hi all, With the help of postmaster, a new Infiniband list has been created for FreeBSD. If you are interested in IB on FreeBSD, please subscribe to the list. My group (Isilon) will be providing more details about the porting effort being done from our end to the latest 1.5.x and the group is w

Re: [patch] reducing arp locking

2012-11-09 Thread Alexander V. Chernikov
On 09.11.2012 20:51, Fabien Thomas wrote: Le 9 nov. 2012 à 17:43, Ingo Flaschberger a écrit : Am 09.11.2012 15:03, schrieb Fabien Thomas: In in_arpinput only exclusive access to the entry is taken during the update no IF_AFDATA_LOCK that's why i was surprised. I'll update patch to reflect c

Re: svn commit: r242739 - stable/9/sys/dev/ti

2012-11-09 Thread Andre Oppermann
On 09.11.2012 17:51, Adrian Chadd wrote: On 9 November 2012 00:08, Andre Oppermann wrote: Firewalling doesn't change the packet and no checksum is needed. NAT does change the packet and the pesky pseudo-header in the TCP/ UDP checksum. However here only the pseudo-header checksum is recalcula

Re: [patch] reducing arp locking

2012-11-09 Thread Fabien Thomas
Le 9 nov. 2012 à 17:43, Ingo Flaschberger a écrit : > Am 09.11.2012 15:03, schrieb Fabien Thomas: >> In in_arpinput only exclusive access to the entry is taken during the update >> no IF_AFDATA_LOCK that's why i was surprised. > > what about this: I'm not against optimizing but an API that see

Re: svn commit: r242739 - stable/9/sys/dev/ti

2012-11-09 Thread Adrian Chadd
On 9 November 2012 00:08, Andre Oppermann wrote: > Firewalling doesn't change the packet and no checksum is needed. > NAT does change the packet and the pesky pseudo-header in the TCP/ > UDP checksum. However here only the pseudo-header checksum is > recalculated and reintegrated into the one-co

Re: [patch] reducing arp locking

2012-11-09 Thread Ingo Flaschberger
Am 09.11.2012 15:03, schrieb Fabien Thomas: In in_arpinput only exclusive access to the entry is taken during the update no IF_AFDATA_LOCK that's why i was surprised. what about this: -- --- /usr/src/sys/netinet/if_ether.c_org 2012-11-09 16:15:43.0 + +++ /usr/src/sys/netinet/if_eth

Re: [patch] reducing arp locking

2012-11-09 Thread Fabien Thomas
Le 9 nov. 2012 à 12:18, Alexander V. Chernikov a écrit : > On 09.11.2012 13:59, Fabien Thomas wrote: >> >> Le 9 nov. 2012 à 10:05, Alexander V. Chernikov a écrit : >> >>> On 09.11.2012 12:51, Fabien Thomas wrote: Le 8 nov. 2012 à 11:25, Alexander V. Chernikov a écrit : > On

Re: [patch] reducing arp locking

2012-11-09 Thread Alexander V. Chernikov
On 09.11.2012 13:59, Fabien Thomas wrote: Le 9 nov. 2012 à 10:05, Alexander V. Chernikov a écrit : On 09.11.2012 12:51, Fabien Thomas wrote: Le 8 nov. 2012 à 11:25, Alexander V. Chernikov a écrit : On 08.11.2012 14:24, Andre Oppermann wrote: On 08.11.2012 00:24, Alexander V. Chernikov wro

Re: [patch] reducing arp locking

2012-11-09 Thread Fabien Thomas
Le 9 nov. 2012 à 10:05, Alexander V. Chernikov a écrit : > On 09.11.2012 12:51, Fabien Thomas wrote: >> >> Le 8 nov. 2012 à 11:25, Alexander V. Chernikov a écrit : >> >>> On 08.11.2012 14:24, Andre Oppermann wrote: On 08.11.2012 00:24, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: > Hello list! >

Re: [patch] reducing arp locking

2012-11-09 Thread Alexander V. Chernikov
On 09.11.2012 12:51, Fabien Thomas wrote: Le 8 nov. 2012 à 11:25, Alexander V. Chernikov a écrit : On 08.11.2012 14:24, Andre Oppermann wrote: On 08.11.2012 00:24, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: Hello list! Currently we need to acquire 2 read locks to perform simple 6-byte copying from arp r

Re: [patch] reducing arp locking

2012-11-09 Thread Fabien Thomas
Le 8 nov. 2012 à 11:25, Alexander V. Chernikov a écrit : > On 08.11.2012 14:24, Andre Oppermann wrote: >> On 08.11.2012 00:24, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: >>> Hello list! >>> >>> Currently we need to acquire 2 read locks to perform simple 6-byte >>> copying from arp record to packet >>> ethern

Re: svn commit: r242739 - stable/9/sys/dev/ti

2012-11-09 Thread Andre Oppermann
On 09.11.2012 01:19, Adrian Chadd wrote: On 8 November 2012 15:55, Andre Oppermann wrote: At the risk of repeating myself: when a routed packet is fragmented the payload (layer 4, eg. TCP/UDP/SCTP) is NOT recalculated or changed or anything else. It remains as originally calculated by the sen