John Baldwin wrote:
> On Monday, September 19, 2011 6:20:07 am Andreas Longwitz wrote:
>> Eugene Grosbein wrote:
>>
>>> Well, given that before busdma commit that hardware worked just fine
>>> with stock driver, it could be less overhead for me to rollback that
>>> one busdma small chunk :-)
>>> Wh
On Monday, September 19, 2011 6:20:07 am Andreas Longwitz wrote:
> Eugene Grosbein wrote:
>
> > Well, given that before busdma commit that hardware worked just fine
> > with stock driver, it could be less overhead for me to rollback that
> > one busdma small chunk :-)
> > Who knows, which drivers
Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> Well, given that before busdma commit that hardware worked just fine
> with stock driver, it could be less overhead for me to rollback that
> one busdma small chunk :-)
> Who knows, which drivers got broken then in 2010 in 6.4-STABLE with
> busdma change besides re(4)...
18.09.2011 03:22, YongHyeon PYUN пишет:
>>> Glad to hear that. Unfortunately I have no plan or time to merge
>>> all changes made in re(4)/rl(4) to stable/6 so you may have to
>>> stick to this unofficial driver. As you already know, I overhauled
>>> these drivers long time ago and there were too
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 03:11:46AM +0700, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> 18.09.2011 03:05, YongHyeon PYUN пишет:
>
> >>> I have back-ported re(4)/rl(4) for latest 6.x.
> >>> http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/re/6.x/README.txt
> >>> Just compile tested and not sure whether it fixes the issue.
> >>
> >>
18.09.2011 03:05, YongHyeon PYUN пишет:
>>> I have back-ported re(4)/rl(4) for latest 6.x.
>>> http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/re/6.x/README.txt
>>> Just compile tested and not sure whether it fixes the issue.
>>
>> I confirm that the problem disappears using this driver with clean RELENG_6
>>
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 09:03:50PM +0700, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> 17.09.2011 02:13, YongHyeon PYUN пишет:
> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:45:25AM +0700, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> >> 16.09.2011 02:19, YongHyeon PYUN пишет:
> >>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 02:02:37AM +0700, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
>
17.09.2011 02:13, YongHyeon PYUN пишет:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:45:25AM +0700, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
>> 16.09.2011 02:19, YongHyeon PYUN пишет:
>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 02:02:37AM +0700, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
16.09.2011 01:15, YongHyeon PYUN пишет:
> I remember re(4) in 6.x
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:45:25AM +0700, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> 16.09.2011 02:19, YongHyeon PYUN пишет:
> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 02:02:37AM +0700, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> >> 16.09.2011 01:15, YongHyeon PYUN пишет:
> >>
> >>> I remember re(4) in 6.x also have a couple of bus_dma(9) bugs. How
16.09.2011 02:19, YongHyeon PYUN пишет:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 02:02:37AM +0700, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
>> 16.09.2011 01:15, YongHyeon PYUN пишет:
>>
>>> I remember re(4) in 6.x also have a couple of bus_dma(9) bugs. How
>>> about applying the following revision?
>>> http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ba
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 02:02:37AM +0700, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> 16.09.2011 01:15, YongHyeon PYUN пишет:
>
> > I remember re(4) in 6.x also have a couple of bus_dma(9) bugs. How
> > about applying the following revision?
> > http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=175337
> > Not su
16.09.2011 01:15, YongHyeon PYUN пишет:
> I remember re(4) in 6.x also have a couple of bus_dma(9) bugs. How
> about applying the following revision?
> http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=175337
> Not sure whether it shall apply cleanly.
It does not and there is too much differe
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:41:23AM +0700, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> 16.09.2011 00:14, John Baldwin пишет:
> > On Thursday, September 15, 2011 12:44:32 pm Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> I understand that it is "a bit" late for RELENG_6 reports as 6.4-RELEASE
> >> was out in 2008
> >> but
16.09.2011 00:14, John Baldwin пишет:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 12:44:32 pm Eugene Grosbein wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I understand that it is "a bit" late for RELENG_6 reports as 6.4-RELEASE was
>> out in 2008
>> but the breakage had happened due to MFC so it's possible same problem
>> exists i
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 12:44:32 pm Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I understand that it is "a bit" late for RELENG_6 reports as 6.4-RELEASE was
> out in 2008
> but the breakage had happened due to MFC so it's possible same problem exists
> in newer branches.
>
> Long story short: I've
Hi!
I understand that it is "a bit" late for RELENG_6 reports as 6.4-RELEASE was
out in 2008
but the breakage had happened due to MFC so it's possible same problem exists
in newer branches.
Long story short: I've updated my old 6.4-STABLE system for recent zoneinfo
updates
and found the update
16 matches
Mail list logo