Current problem reports assigned to freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org

2012-02-20 Thread FreeBSD bugmaster
Note: to view an individual PR, use: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=(number). The following is a listing of current problems submitted by FreeBSD users. These represent problem reports covering all versions including experimental development code and obsolete releases. S Tracker

Re: [urtw] Random wireless crash / kernel panic

2012-02-20 Thread Adam Twardowski
I do still have the kernel and the crash dump. I'll try that fix tonight to see how it goes. Unfortunately, the kernel doesn't usually crash, more likely the wifi stops working and I am forced to reboot the machine to get it working again. On Feb 20, 2012 2:56 AM, "Adrian Chadd" wrote: > > Hi,

Re: [urtw] Random wireless crash / kernel panic

2012-02-20 Thread Bernhard Schmidt
On Monday 20 February 2012 18:03:45 Adam Twardowski wrote: > I do still have the kernel and the crash dump. I'll try that fix tonight > to see how it goes. Unfortunately, the kernel doesn't usually crash, more > likely the wifi stops working and I am forced to reboot the machine to get > it worki

Re: Abstracting struct ifnet

2012-02-20 Thread Brooks Davis
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 08:16:22PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > All, > > Juniper is in the final phases of creating a clean separation > between FreeBSD and Junos, so as to make upgrades of FreeBSD > easier. This also allows Juniper to track -current and be more > active FreeBSD contributors.

Re: Abstracting struct ifnet

2012-02-20 Thread Luigi Rizzo
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 05:16:02PM -0600, Brooks Davis wrote: > > The concept seems fine to me and I like that it might simplify future > API changes. Have you verified that if_get_*() accessors don't add > significant overhead? the vast majority of these fields are only accessed in the control

Re: Abstracting struct ifnet

2012-02-20 Thread Adrian Chadd
On 20 February 2012 16:15, Luigi Rizzo wrote: >> The concept seems fine to me and I like that it might simplify future >> API changes.  Have you verified that if_get_*() accessors don't add >> significant overhead? > > the vast majority of these fields are only accessed in the control path, > not

Re: Abstracting struct ifnet

2012-02-20 Thread Adrian Chadd
On 20 February 2012 18:21, Juli Mallett wrote: > > It's not just about Juniper, though, it's about us, and how much this > buys us.  Using inlines buys us some source compatibility and the > ability to add some invariants, but is no different to macros in terms > of KBI within a version of FreeBSD

Re: Abstracting struct ifnet

2012-02-20 Thread Juli Mallett
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 18:34, Adrian Chadd wrote: > Is the target though _binary_ compatibility? Just having a blessed > method of doing accessor method things will buy more source > flexibility. The KBI can stay the same in the default case and IMHO > this kind of thing gives developers more pow

Re: [urtw] Random wireless crash / kernel panic

2012-02-20 Thread Adam Twardowski
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Bernhard Schmidt wrote: > On Monday 20 February 2012 18:03:45 Adam Twardowski wrote: >> I do still have the kernel and the crash dump.  I'll try that fix tonight >> to see how it goes.  Unfortunately, the kernel doesn't usually crash, more >> likely the wifi stops

Re: Abstracting struct ifnet

2012-02-20 Thread Juli Mallett
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 16:37, Adrian Chadd wrote: > On 20 February 2012 16:15, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > >>> The concept seems fine to me and I like that it might simplify future >>> API changes.  Have you verified that if_get_*() accessors don't add >>> significant overhead? >> >> the vast majority