On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 05:13:19PM +0100, chefren wrote:
> (Hm, saw no response after posting to misc@, manual cross-posting to t...@...)
>
>
> Short question: does pfsync currently support fluent failover of a pf
> established 'route-to' state, when a CARP failover happens?
No, it doesn't.
I ha
(Hm, saw no response after posting to misc@, manual cross-posting to t...@...)
Short question: does pfsync currently support fluent failover of a pf
established 'route-to' state, when a CARP failover happens?
Reason for the question: CARP, pfsync, and route-to all seem to work
nicely in our Ope
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 08:40:52AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Make who(1) a tiny bit smarter and show more of the host part. Max
> linewidth is 80.
>
> -Otto
>
> Index: who.c
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/who/w
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Mark Kettenis
wrote:
> As can be seen from PR 6508, the current implementation of the
> acpibat(4) notify stuff causes infinite recursion. The AML for that
> particular machine will execute a Notify(\_SC.BAT, 0x81) from the
> _BST() method. Since we always execut
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> The second generation ix(4) (82599) produce a low latency interrupt when
> the RX DMA ring gets full. This interrupt is currently unmoderated. On
> overload mclgeti() shrinks the ring to very small sizes and ix(4) will
> answer that with a ma
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 18:19 -0800, Philip Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 17:10 -0700, Philip Guenther wrote:
> ...
> >> The TSS also contains the pointer to the stack used for double faults.
> >> Previously, this was placed on
You are seeing this message in Text format. if your email is in the junk
folder, add the sender email to your address book and move this email into your
inbox to view the HTML version.
> Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 18:19:08 -0800
> From: Philip Guenther
>
> >> /* exceptions */
> >> for (x = 0; x < 32; x++) {
> >> ist = (x == 8) ? 1 : 0;
> >> + // ist = (x == 8) ? 1 : (x == 2) ? 2 : 0;
> >
> > why do you need this comment? or is it a reminder to
