A belated welcome to being a FreeBSD committer! We look forward eagerly to all
contributions you and Intel's experience with networking can bring to us all!
-matt
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Prafulla Deuskar wrote:
> All,
>
> Intel Corporation has released a gigabit driver for
> PRO/1000 series of
can somebody help test these?
It compiles well, etc... but I haven't quite got the setup at the moment to
really do this as I'd have to tear down a current infrastructure that's in the
middle of some long term tests.
Can sombody try these and make it does what it's supposed to? They should...
Yes- I think I agree with you on this.
On Thu, 11 Oct 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> >
> > Maybe bcmp is right. I believe having IS_ETHER_BROADCAST is too
> > useful a macro
>
> yes, i mean leave it as a macro which calls bcmp, and
> let the compiler handle the issue.
>
> #define IS_ETHER_BROA
Maybe bcmp is right. I believe having IS_ETHER_BROADCAST is too
useful a macro
On Thu, 11 Oct 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 11 Oct 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> >
> > > I guess it might be marginally more efficient to
> > > call bcmp() (and rely on it being optimized), or do 3
On Thu, 11 Oct 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> I guess it might be marginally more efficient to
> call bcmp() (and rely on it being optimized), or do 3
> comparisons with unsigned short *
>
> > +#define IS_ETHER_BROADCAST(a) ( \
> > + ((unsigned short *)(a))[0] == 0x && \
> > + ((un
Fix the silly warning:
Index: bridge.h
===
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/net/bridge.h,v
retrieving revision 1.8
diff -u -r1.8 bridge.h
--- bridge.h2001/10/05 05:45:26 1.8
+++ bridge.h2001/10/11 18:11:51
@@ -92,8 +92,17 @@
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Matthew N. Dodd wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Matthew Jacob wrote:
> > Yes- this may have been true for a long time - but quite a number of
> > Unix variants don't require it, so I forgot :-).. For example, neither
> > OpenBSD nor NetBSD seem to re
s
> but it's still there.. :-/
>
> Comments can't hurt though..
>
>
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
> >
> > This bit me in the butt yet again about FreeBSD and some assumptions about how
> > a NIC's softc is laid out- I don&#x
gt;
> -Original Message-
> From: Matthew Jacob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 4:05 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: review of minor clarifying comments
>
>
>
> This bit me in the butt yet again about FreeBSD and some assumptions abo
This bit me in the butt yet again about FreeBSD and some assumptions about how
a NIC's softc is laid out- I don't really it stated elsewhere, so a couple
source file comments seem in order.. Frankly, this kind of assumption is
dangerous and unnecessary with methods, but at the very least it ought
I haven't consulted the RFCs either, but, ahem, I thought this was a major
point of netmasks and routers and why multicast was invented- to keep
broadcasts from clogging the world.
-matt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
That's becasue the PRO-1000F/PRO-1000T support did not get to -CURRENT until
after the release. Upgrade your kernel and try now.
On Thu, 17 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We have a problem with an Intel PRO/1000F Network Adapter.
>
> On FreeBSD 4.2-REALEASE and on 4.3-REALESE
12 matches
Mail list logo
