The following reply was made to PR kern/126742; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: kern/126742: [panic] kernel panic when sending file via ng_ubt(4)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 08:21:45 GMT
>Submitter-Id: current-users
>Originator: A
Just thought I'd put this out there again. Is there anyone who was
involved in the SCTP installation on list?
> Hello.
>
> We've recently written an extensive software system that uses SCTP
as a
> critical component. We've started to run into an issue where the box
kenel
> panics after throwing an
Hi,
The IPFW_DEFAULT_RULE is also the max allowed rule number.
This value should be definitely public, so here is the patch, if there is
no objections I'll commit it within a couple of days.
After that, I plan to fix a couple of tools that need to know this value.
Best regards,
rik
Index: ip
Hi,
The IPFW_DEFAULT_RULE is also the max allowed rule number.
This value should be definitely public, so here is the patch, if there is
no objections I'll commit it within a couple of days.
After that, I plan to fix a couple of tools that need to know this value.
Best regards,
rik
Index: ip_f
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 01:14:45AM +0400, Roman Kurakin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The IPFW_DEFAULT_RULE is also the max allowed rule number.
> This value should be definitely public, so here is the patch, if there is
> no objections I'll commit it within a couple of days.
> After that, I plan to fix a coup
Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 01:14:45AM +0400, Roman Kurakin wrote:
Hi,
The IPFW_DEFAULT_RULE is also the max allowed rule number.
This value should be definitely public, so here is the patch, if there is
no objections I'll commit it within a couple of days.
After that, I plan
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 02:03:50AM +0400, Roman Kurakin wrote:
...
> >unless the tools you have in mind already include ip_fw.h (in which case
> >the change is harmless and I have no objection), i think it would be better
> >to export the value in a sysctl and let the tools fetch it from there,
> >
Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 02:03:50AM +0400, Roman Kurakin wrote:
...
unless the tools you have in mind already include ip_fw.h (in which case
the change is harmless and I have no objection), i think it would be better
to export the value in a sysctl and let the tools fetch it
On Sunday 24 August 2008 01:18:37 Roman Kurakin wrote:
> Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 02:03:50AM +0400, Roman Kurakin wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >>> unless the tools you have in mind already include ip_fw.h (in which
> >>> case the change is harmless and I have no objection), i think it
Max Laier wrote:
On Sunday 24 August 2008 01:18:37 Roman Kurakin wrote:
Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 02:03:50AM +0400, Roman Kurakin wrote:
...
unless the tools you have in mind already include ip_fw.h (in which
case the change is harmless and I have no objection)
Can you help me out a bit with your workload?
tcp_offload_connect(...) needs to determine which interface an address
corresponds to see if that interface supports TCP offload. The code
does the exact same thing as ip_output does except it doesn't have the
inpcb locked (which isn't used as part of
At 10:16 PM 8/23/2008, Kip Macy wrote:
Can you help me out a bit with your workload?
Hi,
A lot of incoming tcp connections on em0,em1,lo0 for smtp
connections. A lot of inbound and outbound udp connections for local
DNS for the box and its neighbours on em0,em1 and a lot of tcp
conn
At 10:16 PM 8/23/2008, Kip Macy wrote:
Can you help me out a bit with your workload?
tcp_offload_connect(...) needs to determine which interface an address
corresponds to see if that interface supports TCP offload. The code
does the exact same thing as ip_output does except it doesn't have the
i
Joe Mays wrote:
Just thought I'd put this out there again. Is there anyone who was
involved in the SCTP installation on list?
yes, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is but I think he's "away" for a while.
Hello.
We've recently written an extensive software system that uses SCTP
as a
critical component.
Mike Tancsa wrote:
At 10:16 PM 8/23/2008, Kip Macy wrote:
Can you help me out a bit with your workload?
tcp_offload_connect(...) needs to determine which interface an address
corresponds to see if that interface supports TCP offload. The code
does the exact same thing as ip_output does except i
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike Tancsa wrote:
>>
>> At 10:16 PM 8/23/2008, Kip Macy wrote:
>>>
>>> Can you help me out a bit with your workload?
>>>
>>> tcp_offload_connect(...) needs to determine which interface an address
>>> corresponds to see
Kip Macy wrote:
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mike Tancsa wrote:
At 10:16 PM 8/23/2008, Kip Macy wrote:
Can you help me out a bit with your workload?
tcp_offload_connect(...) needs to determine which interface an address
corresponds to see if tha
Yes, he has the same issue.
-Kip
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kip Macy wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Mike Tancsa wrote:
At 10:16 PM 8/23/2008, Kip Macy wrote:
>
>
Kip Macy wrote:
Yes, he has the same issue.
-Kip
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kip Macy wrote:
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Mike Tancsa wrote:
At 10:16 PM 8/23/2008, Kip Macy wrote:
Can you help
19 matches
Mail list logo
