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
The following reply was made to PR kern/179299; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Maxim Bourmistrov
To: bug-follo...@freebsd.org,
sy...@prisjakt.nu
Cc:
Subject: Re: kern/179299: [igb] Intel X540-T2 - unstable driver
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 13:32:32 +0200
I was able to reproduce this issue on
Hello,
reviving this old thread since i had time to bring the patch to FreeBSD 10
and unified the whole controlling under ipfw(8) binary.
For reminder, the patch located at [1] provides multiple instances for
ipfw(4).
Basically you can control which interfaces belong to which context/ruleset
to m
Hello,
at location [1] can be found a patch for Codel[3] algorithm implementation.
Triggered by a mail to the mailing lists[2] of OpenBSD i completed the
implementation for FreeBSD.
It allows to use codel as the single configured discipline on an interface.
Also it can be used as a sub disciplin
Hello,
at the location [1] is a patch for making carp(4):
- use rw locks
- unify the timers in carp to a single one for accuracy and predictability
This patch has been tested in pfSense for a long time and recently it has
been moved to FreeBSD 10.
It also fixed some races and LORs present in the
Hello,
the patch at location [1] implements support for dummynet into pf(4).
The patch has been tested and confirmed working without issues into pfSense.
Any objections to integrating this into FreeBSD?
[1]
https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense-tools/blob/master/patches/RELENG_10_0/dummynet.RELENG
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 03:45:01PM +0200, Ermal Lu?i wrote:
> Hello,
>
> the patch at location [1] implements support for dummynet into pf(4).
>
> The patch has been tested and confirmed working without issues into pfSense.
>
> Any objections to integrating this into FreeBSD?
for the dummynet/i
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Ermal Luçi wrote:
> Hello,
>
> reviving this old thread since i had time to bring the patch to FreeBSD 10
> and unified the whole controlling under ipfw(8) binary.
>
> For reminder, the patch located at [1] provides multiple instances for
> ipfw(4).
> Basically yo
Hi,
I am running a system on FreeBSD 9.1-RELEASE.
I have a device on the network which is sending gratuitous ARP messages
(used by a wireless mesh network for a "bridge-loop avoidance" protocol)
every 10 seconds. This causes the mbuf clusters to slowly increase on
FreeBSD, until the maximum i
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Ermal Luçi wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> reviving this old thread since i had time to bring the patch to FreeBSD 10
>> and unified the whole controlling under ipfw(8) binary.
>>
>> For reminder, the patch loc
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 06:52:01PM +0200, Ermal Lu?i wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
...
> > if i understand well, this has no runtime overhead as the ifp has
> > the index of the context it refers to ?
> > Or you need an additional IPFW_CTX_RLOCK() ?
> >
>
> Theoreti
Hi John and Pyun,
Ok got the new kernel installed and tested. Yes it works! :-) Maybe that
will also fix a simular problem with the sun cards (cas[03]), except I
don't see a define like that in if_cas.c. Suggestions?
Thanks,
Clif
John Baldwin wrote:
On Thursday, May 30, 2013 1:12:1
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:13:11PM -0700, Mr. Clif wrote:
> Hi John and Pyun,
>
> Ok got the new kernel installed and tested. Yes it works! :-) Maybe that
Thanks, probably John can fix PCI-PCI bridge code.
> will also fix a simular problem with the sun cards (cas[03]), except I
> don't see a d
Is there any down side to using that dc fix in pfsense for now?
Yes, I would like to have time to submit the cas bug as well. Maybe in
the next week but probably by august I hope. ;-)
Thanks for your help,
Clif
YongHyeon PYUN wrote:
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:13:11PM -0700, Mr. Clif
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 06:26:34PM -0700, Mr. Clif wrote:
> Is there any down side to using that dc fix in pfsense for now?
If dc(4) works as expected there is no reason not to use memory
BARs. Generally using memory BARs is more efficient. Many old PCI
controllers used to have bugs with memory BA
15 matches
Mail list logo
