Kenneth D. Merry writes:
> > As a related question, will this work with the broadcom gigabit (bge)
> > driver, which is the Tigon III? If not, what would it take to get
> > it working?
>
> Unfortunately, it won't work with the Tigon III.
>
> If you can get firmware source for the Tigon I
Terry Lambert writes:
> To do the work, you'd have to do it on your own, after licensing
> the firmware, after signing an NDA. Unlike the rather public
> Tigon II firmware, the Tigon III doesn't have a lot of synergy
> or interesting work going for it. Most people doing interesting
> work
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 13:15:43 -0400, Don Bowman wrote:
> > Andrew Gallatin writes:
> >> Kenneth D. Merry writes:
> >> >
> >> > I have released a new set of zero copy sockets patches, against
> -current
> >> > from today (May 17th, 2002).
> >
> > Hi Ken,
> >
> > I'm glad to see that you're
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 13:12:09 -0400, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
>
> Kenneth D. Merry writes:
> >
> > I have released a new set of zero copy sockets patches, against -current
> > from today (May 17th, 2002).
> >
> > The main change is to deal with the vfs_ioopt changes that Alan Cox made in
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 09:03:38 -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 18-May-2002 Kenneth D. Merry wrote:
> > On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 23:02:55 -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >> * Kenneth D. Merry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020517 22:40] wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I have released a new set of zero copy socket
John Baldwin wrote:
> > This is actually what I was saying was bad: a static function
> > per mutex declaration.
>
> Umm, no, there is _one_ global function that we call. Why not check
> the actual code?
Are you talking about a P4 branch, and not the main repository?
> Why don't you read the c
On 18-May-2002 Terry Lambert wrote:
> John Baldwin wrote:
>> On 18-May-2002 Terry Lambert wrote:
>> > John Baldwin wrote:
>> >> > God, it's annoying that a statically declared mutex is not
>> >> > defacto initialized.
>> >>
>> >> Is it in solaris?
>> >
>> > It isn't in FreeBSD because of the need
John Baldwin wrote:
> On 18-May-2002 Terry Lambert wrote:
> > John Baldwin wrote:
> >> > God, it's annoying that a statically declared mutex is not
> >> > defacto initialized.
> >>
> >> Is it in solaris?
> >
> > It isn't in FreeBSD because of the need to link mutex'es into
> > the "witness protect
Don Bowman wrote:
> > Andrew Gallatin writes:
> >> Kenneth D. Merry writes:
> >> >
> >> > I have released a new set of zero copy sockets patches, against
> -current
> >> > from today (May 17th, 2002).
> >
> > Hi Ken,
> >
> > I'm glad to see that you're still maintining this!
> >
> > Assuming th
On 18-May-2002 Terry Lambert wrote:
> John Baldwin wrote:
>> > God, it's annoying that a statically declared mutex is not
>> > defacto initialized.
>>
>> Is it in solaris?
>
> It isn't in FreeBSD because of the need to link mutex'es into
> the "witness protection program". 8-).
Actually, ther
John Baldwin wrote:
> > God, it's annoying that a statically declared mutex is not
> > defacto initialized.
>
> Is it in solaris?
It isn't in FreeBSD because of the need to link mutex'es into
the "witness protection program". 8-).
> > Yeah, I understand the "witness" crap (if it's there); tha
> Andrew Gallatin writes:
>> Kenneth D. Merry writes:
>> >
>> > I have released a new set of zero copy sockets patches, against
-current
>> > from today (May 17th, 2002).
>
> Hi Ken,
>
> I'm glad to see that you're still maintining this!
>
> Assuming the mutex issues get sorted out, what d
Kenneth D. Merry writes:
>
> I have released a new set of zero copy sockets patches, against -current
> from today (May 17th, 2002).
>
> The main change is to deal with the vfs_ioopt changes that Alan Cox made in
> kern_subr.c. (They conflicted a bit with the zero copy receive code.)
>
:Alfred Perlstein wrote:
:> * Kenneth D. Merry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020517 23:31] wrote:
:> > The problem here is that the mutex needs to be initialized before I can
:> > acquire it, and there's going to be a race between checking to see
:> > whether it has been initialized and actually initializi
On 18-May-2002 Terry Lambert wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>> * Kenneth D. Merry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020517 23:31] wrote:
>> > The problem here is that the mutex needs to be initialized before I can
>> > acquire it, and there's going to be a race between checking to see
>> > whether it has be
On 18-May-2002 Kenneth D. Merry wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 23:02:55 -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>> * Kenneth D. Merry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020517 22:40] wrote:
>> >
>> > I have released a new set of zero copy sockets patches, against -current
>> > from today (May 17th, 2002).
>> >
>> >
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * Kenneth D. Merry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020517 23:31] wrote:
> > The problem here is that the mutex needs to be initialized before I can
> > acquire it, and there's going to be a race between checking to see
> > whether it has been initialized and actually initializing it
* Kenneth D. Merry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020517 23:31] wrote:
>
> The problem here is that the mutex needs to be initialized before I can
> acquire it, and there's going to be a race between checking to see
> whether it has been initialized and actually initializing it.
>
...
> Suggestions?
*sla
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 23:02:55 -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * Kenneth D. Merry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020517 22:40] wrote:
> >
> > I have released a new set of zero copy sockets patches, against -current
> > from today (May 17th, 2002).
> >
> > The main change is to deal with the vfs_ioopt c
* Kenneth D. Merry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020517 22:40] wrote:
>
> I have released a new set of zero copy sockets patches, against -current
> from today (May 17th, 2002).
>
> The main change is to deal with the vfs_ioopt changes that Alan Cox made in
> kern_subr.c. (They conflicted a bit with the
20 matches
Mail list logo
