On 21 Aug 2016, at 19:18, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
> On 21.08.16 20:33, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>>> Does this make sense?
>>
>> Right. Let me go and look into it a little more. I think we may want
>> to revert the change (which just landed to -11, so maybe revert that
>> too) so I can test both of
sepherosa_gmail.com added a subscriber: freebsd-net-list.
REVISION DETAIL
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D7592
EMAIL PREFERENCES
https://reviews.freebsd.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
To: sepherosa_gmail.com, hselasky, glebius, rwatson, bz, gnn, adrian
Cc: freebsd-net-list
___
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=128030
--- Comment #28 from k...@denninger.net ---
(In reply to Andrey V. Elsukov from comment #27)
Excellent... thank you; this implies that if IPSEC_NAT_T is put in GENERIC's
config then a modified kernel is no longer necessary for StrongSwan (a
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=128030
Andrey V. Elsukov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||a...@freebsd.org
--- Comment #
On 21.08.16 20:33, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> Does this make sense?
>
> Right. Let me go and look into it a little more. I think we may want
> to revert the change (which just landed to -11, so maybe revert that
> too) so I can test both of them out for correctness.
>
> Andrey, I'm sorry for sugges
On 21 August 2016 at 07:42, Robert N. M. Watson wrote:
> On 20 Aug 2016, at 21:27, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
>> I wonder if the right-er thing to do here is to allow the cpuid to be
>> whatever it needs to be, but limit the cpuid lookups when it resolves
>> to a netisr array.
>>
>> that'd mean the hy
On 20 Aug 2016, at 21:27, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> I wonder if the right-er thing to do here is to allow the cpuid to be
> whatever it needs to be, but limit the cpuid lookups when it resolves
> to a netisr array.
>
> that'd mean the hybrid model would still return the current CPU up to
> the max C
