On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 5:09 AM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 3:19 AM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Łukasz Wąsikowski
>> wrote:
>>> W dniu 2012-12-21 13:23, Kimmo Paasiala pisze:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
> On
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 3:19 AM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Łukasz Wąsikowski
> wrote:
>> W dniu 2012-12-21 13:23, Kimmo Paasiala pisze:
>>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Jilles Tjoelker wrote:
> On
(clipping off mdf and adrian so they don't get directly spammed :)..)
Crud. Continuing the processor after panic didn't work, so it
might be a case of cxgbe "shot the sheriff" or something else in the
stack is doing something wonky:
db> c
Memory modified after free 0xff8000405000(9216) va
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Łukasz Wąsikowski
wrote:
> W dniu 2012-12-21 13:23, Kimmo Paasiala pisze:
>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Jilles Tjoelker wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 01:04:34PM +0200, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
>>
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:18 PM, wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>>> 9216 sounds like a jumbo frame mbuf. So the NIC is writing to an mbuf
>>> after it's finalised/freed.
>>>
>>> I have a similar bug showing
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:18 PM, wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> 9216 sounds like a jumbo frame mbuf. So the NIC is writing to an mbuf
>> after it's finalised/freed.
>>
>> I have a similar bug showing up on ath(4) RX. :(
>
> Compile with DEBUG_MEMGUARD in the ker
W dniu 2012-12-21 13:23, Kimmo Paasiala pisze:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Jilles Tjoelker wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 01:04:34PM +0200, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
A question related to this for those who have been doing work
On 21 Dec 2012 20:50, "Garrett Cooper" wrote:
>
> On Dec 21, 2012, at 9:09 AM, Michael Zoon wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > I did update the make and distinfo file for a upgrade of bash 4.2.37 to
> > 4.2.39
> > It is attached in this message.
>
> Could you please submit a PR for this and CC the maint
I have committed NetBSD's mtree to the tree and am building and
installing it as nmtree. I plan to replace our mtree with this version
after the following steps:
- Add a WITH_NMTREE build option to install nmtree as mtree and the
old mtree as omtree.
- Switch the default to WITH_NMTREE.
- R
On Dec 21, 2012, at 9:09 AM, Michael Zoon wrote:
> Hi,
> I did update the make and distinfo file for a upgrade of bash 4.2.37 to
> 4.2.39
> It is attached in this message.
Could you please submit a PR for this and CC the maintainer?
Thanks,
-Garrett
__
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> Paul,
>
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 02:11:32PM -, Paul Webster wrote:
> P> I only really need one question answered in honesty;
> P>
> P> I personally think that by forking our own version of PF we have
> P> essentially made something to
Hi,
I did update the make and distinfo file for a upgrade of bash 4.2.37 to
4.2.39
It is attached in this message.
Regards,
Michael
distinfo
Description: Binary data
Makefile
Description: Binary data
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http
On Thursday 20 December 2012 12:18:22 Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote:
> 18.12.2012 00:20, Andriy Gapon:
> > It's been already mentioned many times that ZFS works much better on
> > amd64. It's up to a (potential) user to understand limitations of i386
> > and to decide whether to use ZFS, in what situati
On 21.12.2012 14:16, Fabian Keil wrote:
Fabian Keil wrote:
Alexander Motin wrote:
On 20.12.2012 15:26, Fabian Keil wrote:
Alexander Motin wrote:
On 20.12.2012 12:56, Fabian Keil wrote:
Alexander Motin wrote:
Experiments with dummynet shown ineffective support for very short
tick-bas
Fabian Keil wrote:
> Alexander Motin wrote:
>
> > On 20.12.2012 15:26, Fabian Keil wrote:
> > > Alexander Motin wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 20.12.2012 12:56, Fabian Keil wrote:
> > >>> Alexander Motin wrote:
> > >>>
> > Experiments with dummynet shown ineffective support for very short
> > >>
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Jilles Tjoelker wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 01:04:34PM +0200, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
>>> A question related to this for those who have been doing work on the
>>> rc(8) scripts. Can I assume that /usr/bi
16 matches
Mail list logo