> On 10/19/12 4:25 AM, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Many years ago i have already proposed this feature, but at that time
>> several people were against, because as they said, it could affect
>> performance. Now, when we have high speed network adapters, SMP kernel
>> and network st
On Monday 22 October 2012 23:43:11 Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't mind tackling the net80211 clone detach path.
>
> I do mind how the default for hotplug is "argh, it doesn't work." :-)
>
> So I'd like to come up with something to fix the basic device detach,
> rather than having to actually
The following reply was made to PR kern/92880; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Andrey Simonenko
To: bug-follo...@freebsd.org
Cc:
Subject: kern/92880: [libc] [patch] almost rewritten inet_network(3) function
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 11:36:04 +0300
I optimized inet_network() again.
Differenc
On 23 October 2012 00:16, Marko Zec wrote:
> As already mentioned earlier, I don't terribly object if you'd place
> CURVNET_SET(ifp->if_vnet) inside if_free() and a limited number of similar
> functions, but I don't quite believe this is will enough to solve the
> device_detach() issue without ha
... don't suppose you want to throw this into a test case somewhere in the tree?
The new ATF import would be ideal for this. :)
Adrian
On 23 October 2012 01:40, Andrey Simonenko wrote:
> The following reply was made to PR kern/92880; it has been noted by GNATS.
>
> From: Andrey Simonenko
> T
Hi folks, this is my first post to freebsd-net, and my first bug-fix
submission... I hope this is the right mailing list for this issue, and
the right format for sending in patches
I'm working on a derivative of FreeBSD 7.
I've run into a problem with IP header checksums when fragmenting to
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> ... don't suppose you want to throw this into a test case somewhere in the
> tree?
>
> The new ATF import would be ideal for this. :)
Indeed. The only problem is that bsd.test.mk is missing so you
can't really integrate testcases into t
Hi,
Doing some poking around at the ixgb driver with a card I have at
$work using netperf and two machines hooked up over crossover, I
discovered that while ixgb's throughput performance was fantastic on
7.3/7.4, thoughput performance of the card is degraded on 8.2/9.0/9.1
by ~30% (9400Mbps on 7.4
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Doing some poking around at the ixgb driver with a card I have at
> $work using netperf and two machines hooked up over crossover, I
> discovered that while ixgb's throughput performance was fantastic on
> 7.3/7.4, thoughput performa
On 24.10.2012 01:13, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
Hi,
Doing some poking around at the ixgb driver with a card I have at
$work using netperf and two machines hooked up over crossover, I
discovered that while ixgb's throughput performance was fanta
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Andre Oppermann wrote:
...
>>> Doing some poking around at the ixgb driver with a card I have at
>>> $work using netperf and two machines hooked up over crossover, I
>>> discovered that while ixgb's throughput performance was fantastic on
>>> 7.3/7.4, thoughput p
It you mean the ixgbe driver please call it that, the IS an ixgb driver
which is for
VERY old PCI cards, from the context I assume you mean the newer hardware :)
Jack
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Doing some poking around at the ixgb driver with a card I have
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> It you mean the ixgbe driver please call it that, the IS an ixgb driver
> which is for
> VERY old PCI cards, from the context I assume you mean the newer hardware :)
Yeah... I meant ixgbe. Subject line fixed :).
Thanks!
-Garrett
> On Tue,
13 matches
Mail list logo
