Am 14.02.2012 um 12:37 schrieb Alexander Leidinger:
> 1 FLOWTABLE
The last time I included this in a kernel it seemed to have odd effects on TCP
connections. Admittedly, that was probably two years or so ago, and I never
bothered to find out what was happening in detail. Is it safe now?
Ste
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:21 AM, Alexander Leidinger
wrote:
> Quoting Freddie Cash (from Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:26:54
> -0800):
>
>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Ian Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 2:37:55 +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
>>> > 1 IPSTEALTH -> cha
Quoting Freddie Cash (from Tue, 14 Feb 2012
08:26:54 -0800):
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 2:37:55 +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> 1 IPSTEALTH -> changes ipfw module only?
I don't think this is specific to ipfw. From /sys/con
On 2/14/12 7:43 AM, Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 2:37:55 +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Here is what I got, the first column is the number of requests, the second
> what is requested, and the 3rd my comments (basically it means, if there
is a
> comment, it is not needed/pos
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Ian Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 2:37:55 +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> > 1 IPSTEALTH -> changes ipfw module only?
>
> I don't think this is specific to ipfw. From /sys/conf/NOTES:
>
> # IPSTEALTH enables code to support stealth fo
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 2:37:55 +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Here is what I got, the first column is the number of requests, the second
> what is requested, and the 3rd my comments (basically it means, if there is a
> comment, it is not needed/possible to include in a modular kernel):
> ---s
Quoting Attilio Rao (from Tue, 14 Feb 2012
12:38:17 +):
2012/2/14, Alexander Leidinger :
2 SW_WATCHDOG
This can become a module with very little effort I guess.
What's the TODO list for this?
Bye,
Alexander.
--
No man is lonely while eating spaghetti.
http://www.Leidinger.net
2012/2/14, Alexander Leidinger :
> Quoting Alexander Leidinger (from Fri, 10
> Feb 2012 14:56:04 +0100):
>
>> Such a kernel would cover situations where people compile their own
>> kernel because they want to get rid of some unused kernel code (and
>> maybe even need the memory this frees up).
>>
