On Aug 5, 2013, at 11:20 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> .. and I bet it's not a design pattern, and this is total conjecture on my
> part:
>
> * the original drivers weren't SMP safe;
> * noone really sat down and figured out how to correctly synchronise
> all of this stuff;
> * people did the minim
hello guys,
i have a question about ip addresses. i know my question is not related to
freebsd but i googled a lot and found nothing useful and don't know where i
should ask my question.
i want to know how can i calculate the number of ip addresses in a range?
for example if i have 192.0.0.1 192.
On 8/08/2013 3:55 AM, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
> Darren Reed wrote:
>>>
>>> I would like propose new BPF instructions for the misc category: BPF_COP
>>> and BPF_COPX. It would provide a capability of calling an external
>>> function - think of BPF "coprocessor".
>>
>> No.
>>
>
> You do not
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:04 AM, s m wrote:
> hello guys,
>
> i have a question about ip addresses. i know my question is not related to
> freebsd but i googled a lot and found nothing useful and don't know where i
> should ask my question.
>
> i want to know how can i calculate the number of ip a
On Aug 8, 2013, at 1:14 AM, Darren Reed wrote:
> A BPF program generated on Linux is just as valid as on Solaris or NetBSD.
Not necessarily - negative offsets in load and store instructions are supported
on Linux to access some metadata that's not in the packet data, but those
aren't, as far
Alexander Nasonov wrote:
> Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
> > Why is it a problem? Given that the byte-code and the functions would
> > come from the same source, some coupling seems natural to me. It is
> > simplistic anyway: some already parsed offsets or values could be
> > passed through the
Darren Reed wrote:
> >
> > You do not have to use it.
>
> I get no choice - it is in the kernel by default.
>
There is no default coprocessor. Here is your choice: do not call
bpf_set_cop(9) and those instructions will effectively be NOPs.
> <...>
>
> No. It's not about calling a function,
Le Thu, 8 Aug 2013 11:34:22 +0430,
s m a écrit :
> hello guys,
>
> i have a question about ip addresses. i know my question is not
> related to freebsd but i googled a lot and found nothing useful and
> don't know where i should ask my question.
>
> i want to know how can i calculate the number
On 8/08/2013 9:14 PM, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
> Darren Reed wrote:
>>>
>>> You do not have to use it.
>>
>> I get no choice - it is in the kernel by default.
>>
>
> There is no default coprocessor. Here is your choice: do not call
> bpf_set_cop(9) and those instructions will effectively b
Darren Reed wrote:
> On 8/08/2013 9:14 PM, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
> > Darren Reed wrote:
> >>>
> >>> You do not have to use it.
> >>
> >> I get no choice - it is in the kernel by default.
> >>
> >
> > There is no default coprocessor. Here is your choice: do not call
> > bpf_set_cop(9) a
Try subcalc, it's in ports.
--
Jason Hellenthal
Inbox: jhellent...@dataix.net
Voice: +1 (616) 953-0176
JJH48-ARIN
On Aug 8, 2013, at 7:30, Patrick Lamaiziere wrote:
> Le Thu, 8 Aug 2013 11:34:22 +0430,
> s m a écrit :
>
>> hello guys,
>>
>> i have a question about ip addresses. i know
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013, at 10:44, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
> Try subcalc, it's in ports.
>
I always kept ipcalc installed, but it looks like there's another called
sipcalc, too. I'll have to check these out myself and see if any have
merits over each other.
___
pkg_add -r ipsc
> ipsc -gch 10.80.128.0/27
Network class:A
Network mask: 255.0.0.0
Network mask (hex): FF00
Network address: 10.80.128.0
Subnet bits: 19
Max subnets: 524288
Full subnet mask: 255.255.255.224
Full subnet ma
On Aug 7, 2013, at 10:16 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> On Aug 5, 2013, at 11:20 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
>> .. and I bet it's not a design pattern, and this is total conjecture on my
>> part:
>>
>> * the original drivers weren't SMP safe;
>> * noone really sat down and figured out how to corre
> hello guys,
>
> i have a question about ip addresses. i know my question is not related to
> freebsd but i googled a lot and found nothing useful and don't know where i
> should ask my question.
>
> i want to know how can i calculate the number of ip addresses in a range?
> for example if i have
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 08:55:38AM -0700 I heard the voice of
Michael Sierchio, and lo! it spake thus:
>
> pkg_add -r ipsc
For another, there's a "cidrcalc" program installed by devel/libcidr
(full disclosure: of which I'm the author) that does similar things:
% cidrcalc -bs 10.80.128.35/27
Add
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Matthew D. Fuller
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 08:55:38AM -0700 I heard the voice of
> Michael Sierchio, and lo! it spake thus:
>>
>> pkg_add -r ipsc
>
> For another, there's a "cidrcalc" program installed by devel/libcidr
> (full disclosure: of which I'm the au
.. and it's not just about "saturate the port" with traffic.
It's also about "what happens if I shut down the MAC whilst I'm in the
process of programming in new RX/TX descriptors?"
The ath(4) driver had a spectacular behaviour where if you mess things
up the wrong way it will quite happily DMA c
Yup, it's an incredibly unsafe pattern. It also leads to the pattern where
auxiliary processing is handed off to a taskqueue, which then interleaves
the lock ownership with the ithread and produces out-of-order packet
reception.
Scott
On Aug 8, 2013, at 5:18 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> .. and it
Old Synopsis: sys/dev/netmap patch for Linux compatibility
New Synopsis: [netmap] [patch] sys/dev/netmap patch for Linux compatibility
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-net
Responsible-Changed-By: linimon
Responsible-Changed-When: Fri Aug 9 01:26:45 UTC 2013
Responsible-Changed-Wh
Old Synopsis: sys/dev/netmap memory allocation improvement
New Synopsis: [netmap] [patch] sys/dev/netmap memory allocation improvement
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-net
Responsible-Changed-By: linimon
Responsible-Changed-When: Fri Aug 9 01:29:19 UTC 2013
Responsible-Changed-Wh
21 matches
Mail list logo
