On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 19:34 +, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
> Alexandru Arion wrote:
> > Is there an equivalent in FreeBSD to the SO_ACCEPTCONN option for
> > getsockopt(), available in Linux? It doesn't actually has to be an
> > option for getsockopt(), just a way to determine if a socket has been
Alexandru Arion wrote:
Thanks for both suggestions. Since I'll support version 5.4 and up, this
leaves me to using the workaround implied by calling accept and checking
the returned value, for now.
Erm. It looks like it's implemented in 5.4 as well, although you might
have mentioned in your
On 3/8/07, Bruce M. Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alexandru Arion wrote:
>
> Thanks for both suggestions. Since I'll support version 5.4 and up, this
> leaves me to using the workaround implied by calling accept and checking
> the returned value, for now.
>
Erm. It looks like it's implemente
Vlad GALU wrote:
Erm. It looks like it's implemented in 5.4 as well, although you might
have mentioned in your original mail you were working with a legacy
version of FreeBSD. :^)
http://fxr.watson.org/fxr/ident?v=RELENG54&i=SO_ACCEPTCONN
Manpage diff attached.
Mailman ate your homework.
Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
Manpage diff attached.
Mailman ate your homework. :/
My bad. Committed.
BMS
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED
On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 11:36 +, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
> Alexandru Arion wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for both suggestions. Since I'll support version 5.4 and up, this
> > leaves me to using the workaround implied by calling accept and checking
> > the returned value, for now.
> >
> Erm. It looks l
Alexandru Arion wrote:
Tried it on fresh install of 5.4: compiled the source locally, run, got
error "Protocol not available". Same code works on Linux.
By replacing SO_ACCEPTCONN with SO_REUSEADDR, or any other option that
appears in the manual page for 5.4, the program works correctly.
Bruce,
On 3/7/07, Andrew Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The stp code in > 6.2-RELEASE explicitly does not allow stp to be enabled
on a vlan and people who have removed this check have reported that it
does indeed not work.
Is there a way to allow a bridge to be a vlandev ? For my
environment it
Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
I have just committed a change in bms_netdev which enforces strict
and better defined semantics for the IP_SENDSRCADDR option in
udp_output().
I have just committed this change in -CURRENT.
After testing it with 'ipbroadcast', it looks good apart from sockets
which
What's the word on netisr_direct ?
Do people typically enable this feature ?
net/netisr.c:
static int netisr_direct = 0;
SYSCTL_INT(_net_isr, OID_AUTO, direct, CTLFLAG_RW,
&netisr_direct, 0, "enable direct dispatch");
TUNABLE_INT("net.isr.direct", &netisr_direct);
/*
*
Andrew Thompson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 08:22:16PM +0300, Roman Kurakin wrote:
Ok, since no one want to provide an explanation I'll to do it myself.
...
I suggest to fix this problem in the other way, by checking if the
physical interface
is the dst interface by MAC. Eq if we
Hi
We have 3 supermicro 5015M-MT+ machines that are identical hw
wise and are all running 6.2R. One of them was installed in 32
bit mode and others are running 64 bit systems.
They are all connected to the same Cisco switch (2960G).
32 bit system can communicate with all the other systems besides
Hi,
About half year ago, I tested a mini wireless server card with FreeBSD 6.
The connection runs very fast if only myself using it, but when there are
more than 1 user connected to it, the second user will suffer extremely slow
wireless network connection. My colleague also told me he also exper
> >
> > +/* Give a chance for ifp at first priority. This will help in case
> > we
> > + * the packet comes through the interface with VLAN's and the same
> > + * MACs on several interfaces in a bridge. Also will save some
> > circles
> > + * in case dst interface
14 matches
Mail list logo
