On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 18:31:24 +
"Bjoern A. Zeeb" wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Apr 2016, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, April 09, 2016 12:05:24 PM Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> >> Author: bz
> >> Date: Sat Apr 9 12:05:23 2016
> >> New Revision: 297742
> >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/b
On Saturday, April 09, 2016 06:31:24 PM Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Apr 2016, John Baldwin wrote:
> > trash user data. In the rest of the tree, we tend to prefer marking items
> > as NOFREE instead of this approach putting a priority on stability and
> > reliability over memory efficiency.
>
On Sat, 9 Apr 2016, John Baldwin wrote:
On Saturday, April 09, 2016 12:05:24 PM Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
Author: bz
Date: Sat Apr 9 12:05:23 2016
New Revision: 297742
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/297742
Log:
Mfp: r296310,r296343
It looks like as with the safety belt of DEL
On Saturday, April 09, 2016 12:05:24 PM Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> Author: bz
> Date: Sat Apr 9 12:05:23 2016
> New Revision: 297742
> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/297742
>
> Log:
> Mfp: r296310,r296343
>
> It looks like as with the safety belt of DELAY() fastened (*) we can
Author: bz
Date: Sat Apr 9 12:05:23 2016
New Revision: 297742
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/297742
Log:
Mfp: r296310,r296343
It looks like as with the safety belt of DELAY() fastened (*) we can
completely tear down and free all memory for TCP (after r281599).
(*) in