Hi,
Here's what I have thus far. Please ignore the device_printf() change.
This works for me, both for hotplug cardbus wireless devices as well
as (inadvertently!) a USB bluetooth device.
What do you think?
Adrian
20121114-vimage-1.diff
Description: Binary
On 11/14/12 1:13 PM, Stefano Marinelli wrote:
Hello everybody,
I've been trying to do some experiments to improve my ADSL speed. The idea is to bond two
ADSLs, create two OpenVPN TAP channels connected to a remote (fast connected) server and
doing a round-robind LAGG aggregation on both nodes.
Hello everybody,
I've been trying to do some experiments to improve my ADSL speed. The idea is
to bond two ADSLs, create two OpenVPN TAP channels connected to a remote (fast
connected) server and doing a round-robind LAGG aggregation on both nodes. The
remote end will NAT. The operation is succ
Hi,
This is regarding a lock order reversal which is already reported in
http://ipv4.sources.zabbadoz.net/freebsd/lor/134.html.
Pasting the witness backtrace here:
lock order reversal
1st 0xc1787144 inp (raw6inp) @ sys/netinet6/icmp6.c:1895
2nd 0xc1788090 inp (rawinp) @ sys/netinet6/icmp6.c:1895
On Nov 14, 2012, at 12:23 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 11/12/2012 02:57 PM, Dustin Wenz wrote:
>> I'm trying to determine why the default ephemeral port range appears
>> to be 1 through 65535 in at least 8.1 through 9.1RC.
>
> I had produced the patch that extended the ephemeral port range
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:28:23PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
A> So, we can do the following:
A> 1) lock increments/decrements via some separate mutex
A> 2) do nothing
A> 3) take some combined approach:
4) Take it via uma_zone_getcur(ipfw_dyn_rule_zone);
--
Totus tuus, Glebius.
__
Hello
I currently working on a number of drivers for popular network
cards and extend them with automatic hybrid interrupt/polling
ithread processing with life-lock prevention (so that the driver
can't consume all CPU when under heavy load or attack).
To properly test this I need the proper hard
On 14/11/2012 09:59, Joe Holden wrote:
On 14/11/2012 09:35, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On 14.11.2012 08:48, Sean Chittenden wrote:
Regardless, why are you trying to do something that is unsupported
by pretty much every vendor/operator/os?
Status quo is fine and dandy if it's rational, backed up w
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:06:04PM -0800, Sean Chittenden wrote:
> Where does it say that it shouldn't be used? Which RFC & ?? There are plenty
> of RFCs and I haven't exhaustively read things, so I reserve the right to be
> wrong & corrected, but I haven't seen anything that says, "do not use
On 14/11/2012 09:35, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On 14.11.2012 08:48, Sean Chittenden wrote:
Regardless, why are you trying to do something that is unsupported
by pretty much every vendor/operator/os?
Status quo is fine and dandy if it's rational, backed up with a
justification and can be understoo
On 14.11.2012 08:48, Sean Chittenden wrote:
Regardless, why are you trying to do something that is unsupported by pretty
much every vendor/operator/os?
Status quo is fine and dandy if it's rational, backed up with a justification
and can be understood, but I'm not seeing anything that suggest
On 14/11/2012 07:48, Sean Chittenden wrote:
Regardless, why are you trying to do something that is unsupported by pretty
much every vendor/operator/os?
Status quo is fine and dandy if it's rational, backed up with a justification
and can be understood, but I'm not seeing anything that suggest
12 matches
Mail list logo
