Sorry, having problems sending attachments as plain text.
Here's virtio_net_3.10.60.patch:
# The netmap 3.10 patch for the virtio_net driver fails to apply. This
# patch is the whole netmap virtio driver patch for 3.10.60 (from
# kernel.org), and it applies correctly.
#
Index: linux-3.10.60/dri
Sorry, having problems sending attachments as plain text.
Here's virtio_netmap.patch:
# This file is a patch to the netmap virtio_net driver include file.
# There is a problem with the initialization, and during read packet with
# control of the indicies .
#
# This problem is easily seen by bui
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Tony Moseby wrote:
> Hello,
>
> A simple question,if I want to know if there is a patch for my
> problem where should i Look?is there a data base or similar with
> all patches for every source code file ? or how does one goes about.
> Many thanks
I'm not sure what
Hi Folks,
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 12:39:09PM -0400, George Neville-Neil wrote:
> Adrian,
>
> Can you put this into a Phabricator for review?
>
> Lars,
>
> How have you been testing this?
Did the newcwv patch make its way into Phabricator? I don't think I would have
seen if it did.
>
> On 27
Adrian,
Can you put this into a Phabricator for review?
Lars,
How have you been testing this?
Best,
George
On 27 Aug 2014, at 4:01, Eggert, Lars wrote:
> Yep
>
> On 2014-8-27, at 9:53, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
>> Ok. Is it the same patch you sent out in Feb?
>>
>>
>> -a
>>
>>
>> On 27 August 2
Yep
On 2014-8-27, at 9:53, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Ok. Is it the same patch you sent out in Feb?
>
>
> -a
>
>
> On 27 August 2014 00:43, Eggert, Lars wrote:
>> Not as far as I know.
>>
>> Lars
>>
>> On 2014-8-27, at 9:39, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>>
>>> Is there a PR for it?
>>>
>>>
>>> -a
>
Ok. Is it the same patch you sent out in Feb?
-a
On 27 August 2014 00:43, Eggert, Lars wrote:
> Not as far as I know.
>
> Lars
>
> On 2014-8-27, at 9:39, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
>> Is there a PR for it?
>>
>>
>> -a
>>
>>
>> On 27 August 2014 00:23, Eggert, Lars wrote:
>>> It would be great if
Not as far as I know.
Lars
On 2014-8-27, at 9:39, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Is there a PR for it?
>
>
> -a
>
>
> On 27 August 2014 00:23, Eggert, Lars wrote:
>> It would be great if people could also review Aris' PRR patch - RFC6937 has
>> been out for a while.
>>
>> Lars
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Is there a PR for it?
-a
On 27 August 2014 00:23, Eggert, Lars wrote:
> It would be great if people could also review Aris' PRR patch - RFC6937 has
> been out for a while.
>
> Lars
>
>
>
>
> On 2014-8-26, at 20:09, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I'm going to merge Tom's work in a week un
It would be great if people could also review Aris' PRR patch - RFC6937 has
been out for a while.
Lars
prr.patch
Description: Binary data
On 2014-8-26, at 20:09, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm going to merge Tom's work in a week unless someone gives me a
> really good reason not to.
>
Hi!
I'm going to merge Tom's work in a week unless someone gives me a
really good reason not to.
I think there's been enough work and discussion about it since the
first post from Lars in Feburary and enough review opportunity.
-a
On 26 August 2014 07:55, Tom Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 02:43:49PM +, Eggert, Lars wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the newcwv patch is probably stale now with Tom Jones' recent patch based on
> a more up-to-date version of the Internet-Draft, but the PRR patch should
> still be useful?
My newcwv patch is much more up to date than Aris's,
Hi,
the newcwv patch is probably stale now with Tom Jones' recent patch based on a
more up-to-date version of the Internet-Draft, but the PRR patch should still
be useful?
Lars
On 2014-6-19, at 23:35, George Neville-Neil wrote:
> On 4 Feb 2014, at 1:38, Eggert, Lars wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> b
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 02:35:13PM -0700, George Neville-Neil wrote:
> On 4 Feb 2014, at 1:38, Eggert, Lars wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > below are two patches that implement RFC6937 ("Proportional Rate Reduction
> > for TCP") and draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv-00 ("Updating TCP to support
> > Rate-Limited T
On 4 Feb 2014, at 1:38, Eggert, Lars wrote:
> Hi,
>
> below are two patches that implement RFC6937 ("Proportional Rate Reduction
> for TCP") and draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv-00 ("Updating TCP to support
> Rate-Limited Traffic"). They were done by Aris Angelogiannopoulos for his MS
> thesis, which is
John Howie wrote:
> Hi Rick,
>
> That is an excellent point and a good debate to have.
>
> I have not looked in detail at how PXEBOOT does it, but I think a
> clean up of the code to somehow pass arguments to the kernel is
> preferable to having a diskless client send a slew of needless
> request
On 6/1/14, 8:01 PM, Rick Macklem wrote:
John Howie wrote:
[...]
Actually, I tend to think that using the code in sys/nfs/bootp_subr.c
is preferable to using the NFS stuff in stand that pxeboot does.
The only reason I know for pxeboot doing the NFS stuff and filling in
the nfsv3_diskless struct
Hi Rick,
That is an excellent point and a good debate to have.
I have not looked in detail at how PXEBOOT does it, but I think a clean up of
the code to somehow pass arguments to the kernel is preferable to having a
diskless client send a slew of needless requests to the DHCP server to request
Hi Steinar,
I could ask you to 'prove it', too, but I can easily check when I get back from
my current travels :-)
It important to note that even if it does (as I think it does) it is NOT in
violation of the RFC. The RFC simply says that if a client wants something it
should ask for it, and no
> In short, no, I have no packet traces. Given that the DHCP code in the
> FreeBSD boot loader and NFS subsystem does not request those options, but
> that ISC-DHCP does provide them, I will go out on a limb and say that it
> must be serving them without being asked if they are configured.
In that
John Howie wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I apologize for the cross posting of this email, but I believe it
> will be
> of interest to people across all three groups. Please feel free to
> forward
> to additional groups if you feel they would benefit.
>
> I have seen a few posts on and off over the years a
Hi Steinar,
In short, no, I have no packet traces. Given that the DHCP code in the
FreeBSD boot loader and NFS subsystem does not request those options, but
that ISC-DHCP does provide them, I will go out on a limb and say that it
must be serving them without being asked if they are configured.
Re
> Section 3.5 of RFC 2131 (the DHCP RFC) states that "...Second, in its
> initial DHCPDISCOVER or DHCPREQUEST message, a client may provide the
> server with a list of specific parameters the client is interested in"
> and "...The client can inform the server which configuration parameters
> the cl
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 4:16 PM, hiren panchasara
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> since folks are playing with Midori's DCTCP patch, I wanted to make sure
>> that you were also aware of the patches that Aris did for PRR and NewCWV...
>
>>>
>>>
>
> Lars
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
> Hi,
>
> since folks are playing with Midori's DCTCP patch, I wanted to make sure that
> you were also aware of the patches that Aris did for PRR and NewCWV...
>>
>>
Lars,
There are no actual patches attached here. (Or the mailing-list dro
Hi,
since folks are playing with Midori's DCTCP patch, I wanted to make sure that
you were also aware of the patches that Aris did for PRR and NewCWV...
Lars
On 2014-2-4, at 10:38, Eggert, Lars wrote:
> Hi,
>
> below are two patches that implement RFC6937 ("Proportional Rate Reduction
> for
On 2003.06.19 21:33:33 +0300, Ari Suutari wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > * Ari Suutari:
> >
> > > Here are two small patches (done on 5.1-RELEASE, but should be ok
> > > for -current also) which add new "ipsec" flag to ipfw2.
> >
> > i did not receive any attachments. will this functionality be
> > include
Hi,
> * Ari Suutari:
>
> > Here are two small patches (done on 5.1-RELEASE, but should be ok
> > for -current also) which add new "ipsec" flag to ipfw2.
>
> i did not receive any attachments. will this functionality be
> included into freebsd-5 in the future?
Does the mailing list strip at
28 matches
Mail list logo
