[Differential] [Accepted] D1764: Factor out ip6_deletefraghdr()

ae added a subscriber: ae. ae accepted this revision. ae added a reviewer: ae. ae added a comment. I have no objections against it, the code looks similar to previous implementation. REVISION DETAIL https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1764 To: kristof, glebius, ae Cc: ae, glebius, freebsd-net __

Re: Double cleanup in igb_attach

Looking at the em driver, the em_detach is missing from the same place. return (0); 759 760err_late

[Differential] [Accepted] D1766: Factor out ip6_fragment()

glebius added a subscriber: glebius. glebius accepted this revision. glebius added a reviewer: glebius. glebius added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Thanks. We also need someone working in netinet6 look into this. INLINE COMMENTS sys/netinet6/ip6_output.c:225 uint32

[Differential] [Accepted] D1765: PF: Handle fragmented IPv6 packets

glebius accepted this revision. glebius added a reviewer: glebius. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. REVISION DETAIL https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1765 To: kristof, glebius Cc: glebius, freebsd-net ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing lis

[Differential] [Changed Subscribers] D1765: PF: Handle fragmented IPv6 packets

glebius added a subscriber: glebius. glebius added a comment. Kristof, big thanks for working on this. See my comments. INLINE COMMENTS sys/netpfil/pf/pf.c:366 This function can also be used not only for fragment rbtree, but can also substitute the PF_ANEQ, PF_AEQ and could be considered to s

[Differential] [Accepted] D1805: [sockbuf] Don't access fields directly, use accessor functions

rwatson accepted this revision. rwatson added a comment. Seems sensible. REVISION DETAIL https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1805 To: davide, kmacy, np, lstewart, rrs, julian, adrian, rwatson Cc: emaste, freebsd-net ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list

Re: Was Re: FreeBSD 10.1: Intel dual port 10GbE card (82599EB) second port not present?: SFP+ on intel xl710

I should add, that this possibility Jeff mentions involves a tool, not the driver, and it is not something that there is any commitment or specifics on yet. Cheers, Jack On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Pieper, Jeffrey E < jeffrey.e.pie...@intel.com> wrote: > The check for supported modules i

RE: Was Re: FreeBSD 10.1: Intel dual port 10GbE card (82599EB) second port not present?: SFP+ on intel xl710

The check for supported modules in X710/XL710 is done in the FW, so unfortunately there is nothing we can do in the driver to add that functionality. There is a possibility that it could happen at some point, but not in the foreseeable future. Jeff -Original Message- From: owner-freebs

[Differential] [Commented On] D1764: Factor out ip6_deletefraghdr()

kristof added a comment. Most of the remarks apply to the previous code as well. I have a minor preference for the patch to be a straight move of the existing code. If you feel strongly we should to take the opportunity to do style cleanups I will of course do so. I could also do the cleanups in

[Differential] [Accepted] D1764: Factor out ip6_deletefraghdr()

glebius added a subscriber: glebius. glebius accepted this revision. glebius added a reviewer: glebius. glebius added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Thanks. Patch looks good to me, but see comments. We probably need a nod from a IPv6 expert. I'll send link to ae@. IN

Re: Double cleanup in igb_attach

I do not recall if I put that call in myself and, yes, it seems odd. It was probably trying to clean up some bad state a failed attach left things in. If it is removed it should be thoroughly regression tested. Jack On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Sreekanth Rupavatharam < rupav...@juniper.net

Re: Double cleanup in igb_attach

Hi Jack, Actually, looking at the code again, it seems to me that igb_detach is not supposed to be called from igb_attach at all. It causes more problems than previously mentioned. E.g., in case of branching to err_late *before* igb_setup_interface(where the ifp is initialized), calling igb_det

Was Re: FreeBSD 10.1: Intel dual port 10GbE card (82599EB) second port not present?: SFP+ on intel xl710

Hello, the discussion about unsupported sfps on intel card got an interesting turn today: a colleague wanted to do some pps (on linux) testing on an intel xl710 card, but the sfps we had was not supported. Reading the previous thread, I suggested there might be a sysctl to accept "other" sfps. Lo

Re: FreeBSD 10.1: Intel dual port 10GbE card (82599EB) second port not present? (Steven Hartland)

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:30 AM, John Jasen wrote: > > > Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 20:47:15 + > > From: Steven Hartland > > To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org > > Subject: Re: FreeBSD 10.1: Intel dual port 10GbE card (82599EB): > > second port not present? > > Message-ID: <54dbbfd3.7010...@multipl

Re: FreeBSD 10.1: Intel dual port 10GbE card (82599EB) second port not present? (Steven Hartland)

> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 20:47:15 + > From: Steven Hartland > To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: FreeBSD 10.1: Intel dual port 10GbE card (82599EB): > second port not present? > Message-ID: <54dbbfd3.7010...@multiplay.co.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format

RE: Invalid subnet masks

> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 05:49:35PM + I heard the voice of Matt > Churchyard, and lo! it spake thus: > > > On 11 Feb 2015, at 17:38, Warren Block wrote: > > > ifconfig em0 inet 192.168.1.1/24 > > > > Yeah I've been using that format in rc.conf for years. Quicker to type > > and looks tidy.