On 01/12/2014 19:17, Jack Vogel wrote:
Not taking it personally, in this case I see some style things I don't
like, and I'm not at all clear
why this is even necessary, what the old way of doing queue config was
missing for instance?
Having asked the same question on the review I think I can ta
Not taking it personally, in this case I see some style things I don't
like, and I'm not at all clear
why this is even necessary, what the old way of doing queue config was
missing for instance?
Thanks Steve,
Jack
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Steven Hartland
wrote:
>
> On 01/12/2014 16:46
On 01/12/2014 16:46, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On Dec 1, 2014, at 8:37 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
Hi,
I think you maybe missed a point
On 12/01/14 17:31, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Yes that is why it is being done by hand in the probe routine. I think proper
thing might be a way to
> On Dec 1, 2014, at 8:37 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I think you maybe missed a point
>
>> On 12/01/14 17:31, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>>
>> Yes that is why it is being done by hand in the probe routine. I think
>> proper thing might be a way to sort out how to get tunab
On Monday, December 01, 2014 07:55:57 AM Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 2014, at 7:49 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> >> On Monday, December 01, 2014 07:19:13 AM Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >> John,
> >>
> >> Will work on a new revision based on feedback.
> >>
> >> Two things to note however:
> >
Hi,
I think you maybe missed a point
On 12/01/14 17:31, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Yes that is why it is being done by hand in the probe routine. I think proper
thing might be a way to sort out how to get tunables to run at a driver load
event? Is that possible?
All sysctls are tried in
> On Dec 1, 2014, at 8:28 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>
>> On 12/01/14 16:56, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>>
>>
On Dec 1, 2014, at 7:49 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On 12/01/14 16:45, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> It is quite early, actually:
>
On 12/01/14 16:56, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On Dec 1, 2014, at 7:49 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On 12/01/14 16:45, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Hi,
It is quite early, actually:
SYSINIT(sysctl, SI_SUB_KMEM, SI_ORDER_FIRST, sysctl_register_all, 0);
In some parts of the machine independent,
Really, and did I say that I approved, because I do not recall the event?
Jack
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 8:08 AM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Jack you were asked. Please see the review system.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 1, 2014, at 8:05 AM, Jack Vogel wrote:
>
> There is no mystery about
Jack you were asked. Please see the review system.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 1, 2014, at 8:05 AM, Jack Vogel wrote:
>
> There is no mystery about who's drivers these are, and its not like it would
> take a lot of effort to figure out ownership and ask us for review.
>
> Remove this comm
There is no mystery about who's drivers these are, and its not like it would
take a lot of effort to figure out ownership and ask us for review.
Remove this commit until I have had time to look it over!
Jack
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
>
> > On Dec 1, 2014, at 7:
> On Dec 1, 2014, at 7:49 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>
>> On 12/01/14 16:45, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>>>
>>> It is quite early, actually:
>>>
>>> SYSINIT(sysctl, SI_SUB_KMEM, SI_ORDER_FIRST, sysctl_register_all, 0);
>>>
>>> In some parts of the machine independent, MI, code
> On Dec 1, 2014, at 7:49 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
>
>> On Monday, December 01, 2014 07:19:13 AM Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>> John,
>>
>> Will work on a new revision based on feedback.
>>
>> Two things to note however:
>>
>> Already explored the idea of using kernel_sysctlbyname but rejected du
On Monday, December 01, 2014 07:19:13 AM Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> John,
>
> Will work on a new revision based on feedback.
>
> Two things to note however:
>
> Already explored the idea of using kernel_sysctlbyname but rejected due to
> following:
>
> It makes little sense to have a rw sysctl t
On 12/01/14 16:45, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Hi,
It is quite early, actually:
SYSINIT(sysctl, SI_SUB_KMEM, SI_ORDER_FIRST, sysctl_register_all, 0);
In some parts of the machine independent, MI, code you neee to keep the
TUNABLE_FETCH'es, because its run before SI_SUB_KMEM !
Then it will n
> On Dec 1, 2014, at 7:43 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>
>> On 12/01/14 16:39, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>>
>>
On Dec 1, 2014, at 7:34 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On 12/01/14 16:29, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>> On Dec 1, 2014, at 7:26 AM, Hans Petter Selasky
On 12/01/14 16:39, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On Dec 1, 2014, at 7:34 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On 12/01/14 16:29, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On Dec 1, 2014, at 7:26 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On 12/01/14 16:19, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
It makes little sense to have a rw sysctl that
> On Dec 1, 2014, at 7:34 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>
>> On 12/01/14 16:29, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>>
>>
On Dec 1, 2014, at 7:26 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On 12/01/14 16:19, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
It makes little sense to have a rw sysctl that only takes effe
On 12/01/14 16:29, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On Dec 1, 2014, at 7:26 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On 12/01/14 16:19, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
It makes little sense to have a rw sysctl that only takes effect "some times".
This violates POLA at the expense of making code appear cleaner. Expec
> On Dec 1, 2014, at 7:26 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>
>> On 12/01/14 16:19, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>> It makes little sense to have a rw sysctl that only takes effect "some
>> times". This violates POLA at the expense of making code appear cleaner.
>> Expectation is that writable sysctl
On 12/01/14 16:19, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
It makes little sense to have a rw sysctl that only takes effect "some times".
This violates POLA at the expense of making code appear cleaner. Expectation is that
writable sysctls take
Hi,
I think you are missing a new feature in 11-current, that i
John,
Will work on a new revision based on feedback.
Two things to note however:
Already explored the idea of using kernel_sysctlbyname but rejected due to
following:
It makes little sense to have a rw sysctl that only takes effect "some times".
This violates POLA at the expense of making co
On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 08:19:36 PM Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Author: alfred
> Date: Wed Nov 26 20:19:36 2014
> New Revision: 275136
> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/275136
>
> Log:
> Make igb and ixgbe check tunables at probe time.
>
> This allows one to make a kernel
Author: alfred
Date: Wed Nov 26 20:19:36 2014
New Revision: 275136
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/275136
Log:
Make igb and ixgbe check tunables at probe time.
This allows one to make a kernel module to tune the
number of queues before the driver loads.
This is needed
24 matches
Mail list logo
