On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 06:19:06PM +0400, Vladimir Grebenschikov wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 17:52 +0100, Rui Paulo wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 11:08:00PM +0400, Vladimir Grebenschikov wrote:
> > > ? Thu, 28/08/2008 ? 00:22 +, Rui Paulo ?:
> > > > rpaulo 2008-08-28 00:22:59 U
The following reply was made to PR kern/127102; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: "=?KOI8-R?B?7sUg5MHN09E=?=" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: kern/127102: [wpi] Intel 3945ABG low throughput
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 13:15:29 -0400
--=_Part_24971_5426585.1220980530002
Hi Julian.
Has anyone else tested this patch? I'm going to have a bit of time to
try reproducing this again in the following days. Is this patch version
the last one you have written? Should I patch with this one and give it
a try?
FWIW, reading through this version of rt_check_fib() is nicer,
Whenever I call this sysctl, I get an errno of EPROGNOTAVAIL from sysctl():
»···name[0] = CTL_NET;
»···name[1] = PF_LINK;
»···name[2] = NETLINK_GENERIC;
»···name[3] = IFMIB_IFDATA;
»···name[4] = ifindex;
»···name[5] = IFDATA_DRIVERNAME;
»···len = IFNAMSIZ;
»···if
Bruce M Simpson wrote:
It looks like the switch..case in that path could be fubar'd by the
compiler as there are not break statements for each distinct case
label, could this be due to gcc friendly fire?
Possibly false alarm or PEBKAC, I wasn't checking return values right in
some of my cod
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
Hi Julian.
Has anyone else tested this patch? I'm going to have a bit of time to
try reproducing this again in the following days. Is this patch version
the last one you have written? Should I patch with this one and give it
a try?
I think this was the last one.
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
Hi Julian.
Has anyone else tested this patch? I'm going to have a bit of time to
try reproducing this again in the following days. Is this patch version
the last one you have written? Should I patch with this one and give it
a try?
no one else has.. which seems str
