Date:Thu, 30 Nov 2017 23:09:07 +0100
From:Manuel Bouyer
Message-ID: <20171130220907.ga2...@antioche.eu.org>
| Shouldn't it be made Xfail on i386 in this case ?
I don't think so, especially not now the problem is understood - it is
trivial to make it work on i386, t
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 06:16:10AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date:Wed, 29 Nov 2017 16:51:56 +
> From:Taylor R Campbell
>
> Message-ID: <20171129165637.6fa4960...@jupiter.mumble.net>
>
> | This is starting to smell like a compiler bug in fp correctness...but
>
In article <20171130161335.366f0f...@cvs.netbsd.org>,
Martin Husemann wrote:
>+sys/netipsec/key.c1.236-1.242
Anything below 245 will eventually deadlock.
christos
On 2017/11/30 12:53, SAITOH Masanobu wrote:
Module Name:src
Committed By: msaitoh
Date: Thu Nov 30 03:53:24 UTC 2017
Modified Files:
src/sys/dev/pci: if_wm.c
Log Message:
Don't allocate MSI-X interrupt on 82583. 82583 chip has a MSI-X capability in
the PCI configuratio
