Firewall redirect doesn't work any more...

2008-09-19 Thread Pawel Jakub Dawidek
...or am I missing something? I've a box running: FreeBSD whiplash.wheel.pl 7.0-STABLE FreeBSD 7.0-STABLE #0: Wed Jul 23 11:41:31 CEST 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/WHIPLASH i386 I'm also running PF in there with the following rule: rdr on fxp0 proto tcp from 10.0.1.9 to 10.0.0.

Re: MSI Wind Notebook's network interfaces

2008-09-19 Thread Milan Obuch
On Friday 19 September 2008 05:36:50 Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 12:32:42PM +0200, Milan Obuch wrote: > > On Monday 08 September 2008 12:29:12 Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 06, 2008 at 08:03:52AM +0200, Milan Obuch wrote: > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > It was

Re: Code release of ipfw NAT support for SCTP in FreeBSD-8

2008-09-19 Thread Randy Stewart
Jason: Do you know if anyone will shepard this in to FreeBSD? If not I will volunteer... I need to actually fix the stack to be able to generate the right things for this anyway ;-) Let me know if you have someone already out there doing this :-) Thanks R On Jun 29, 2008, at 6:36 AM, Jason Bu

Re: Firewall redirect doesn't work any more...

2008-09-19 Thread Pawel Jakub Dawidek
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 09:56:33AM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > ...or am I missing something? > > I've a box running: > > FreeBSD whiplash.wheel.pl 7.0-STABLE FreeBSD 7.0-STABLE #0: Wed Jul 23 > 11:41:31 CEST 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/WHIPLASH i386 > > I'm also running

Re: Firewall redirect doesn't work any more...

2008-09-19 Thread Max Laier
On Friday 19 September 2008 14:16:02 Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 09:56:33AM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > > ...or am I missing something? > > > > I've a box running: > > > > FreeBSD whiplash.wheel.pl 7.0-STABLE FreeBSD 7.0-STABLE #0: Wed Jul 23 > > 11:41:31 CEST 2008

Unnecessary check in mb_zinit_pack()?

2008-09-19 Thread Renaud Lienhart
It seems there is a redundant check in mb_zinit_pack(): if (uma_zalloc_arg(zone_clust, m, how) == NULL || m->m_ext.ext_buf == NULL) return (ENOMEM); If uma_zalloc_arg() successfully allocates a cluster then shouldn't m->m_ext.ext_buf be guaranteed not to be NUL

Re: HEADS UP: ath_hal updated to 0.10.5.10 -- PLEASE TEST

2008-09-19 Thread Duane Wessels
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008, Henri-Pierre Charles said: I've tried 7.1-BETA and 8.0-CURRENT-200809 on my eeepc model 701 7.1 does not recognize ath0, as expected, but 8.0-CURRENT does. For the record, the same is true for my Acer Aspire One. After updating sys/contrib/dev/ath to HEAD I now have a

Re: HEADS UP: ath_hal updated to 0.10.5.10 -- PLEASE TEST

2008-09-19 Thread Frank Mayhar
On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 16:02 -0700, Duane Wessels wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Sep 2008, Henri-Pierre Charles said: > > > I've tried 7.1-BETA and 8.0-CURRENT-200809 on my eeepc model 701 > > > > 7.1 does not recognize ath0, as expected, but 8.0-CURRENT does. > > For the record, the same is true for my A

Re: HEADS UP: ath_hal updated to 0.10.5.10 -- PLEASE TEST

2008-09-19 Thread Sam Leffler
Frank Mayhar wrote: On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 16:02 -0700, Duane Wessels wrote: On Mon, 15 Sep 2008, Henri-Pierre Charles said: I've tried 7.1-BETA and 8.0-CURRENT-200809 on my eeepc model 701 7.1 does not recognize ath0, as expected, but 8.0-CURRENT does. For the record, the same

Re: HEADS UP: ath_hal updated to 0.10.5.10 -- PLEASE TEST

2008-09-19 Thread Frank Mayhar
On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 17:57 -0700, Sam Leffler wrote: > Frank Mayhar wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 16:02 -0700, Duane Wessels wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008, Henri-Pierre Charles said: > >> > >> > >>> I've tried 7.1-BETA and 8.0-CURRENT-200809 on my eeepc model 701 > >>> > >>> 7.1 d