On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> recent commit to pirofti made me wonder why don't we take an advantage
> of the 64 bit bswap instruction on amd64?
Here's a revised diff with two changes from Mike's:
1) use %0 instead of %1, as the %N operands are zero-based. (I dare
anyone to
Hi,
There exists a race when a process is trying to read from a spliced
socket. soreceive() releases splsoftnet for uiomove(). In that
moment, somove() can pull the mbuf from the receive buffer. After
that, soreceive will remove the mbuf again. The corrupt length
accounting will result in a pa
Rude and uncalled for, Marco. Not very nice of you.
Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 03:01:47PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
| http://stallman.oURL_CHANGED_TO_PROTECT_THE_INNOCENT.jpg
|
| On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 08:28:06PM +0200, Paul Irofti wrote:
| > On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 09:3
http://stallman.org/Portrait_-_Denmark_DTU_2007-3-31.jpg
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 08:28:06PM +0200, Paul Irofti wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 09:31:57AM -0800, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Paul Irofti wrote:
> > > bswap r64 is the way to do it, but I'm not sure wh
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Paul Irofti wrote:
> bswap r64 is the way to do it, but I'm not sure what the second line is
> supposed to do.
It's just the syntax for GCC's "Statements and Declarations in
Expressions" extension:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Statement-Exprs.html#Statem
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 09:31:57AM -0800, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Paul Irofti wrote:
> > bswap r64 is the way to do it, but I'm not sure what the second line is
> > supposed to do.
>
> It's just the syntax for GCC's "Statements and Declarations in
> Expressions"
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:07:09PM +0100, Tim van der Molen wrote:
> I have the following ral(4):
>
> ral0 at pci0 dev 13 function 0 "Ralink RT2561S" rev 0x00: irq 5, address
00:1d:7d:49:28:92
> ral0: MAC/BBP RT2561C, RF RT2527
>
> After a commit from August 2010 (see
> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 04:50:08PM +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> recent commit to pirofti made me wonder why don't we take an advantage
> of the 64 bit bswap instruction on amd64?
Bah, you beat me to it!
bswap r64 is the way to do it, but I'm not sure what the second line is
supposed to do.
>
To follow up on a misc@ post [1], the following diff adds two families
of supported cards to the mfi(4) manual page. If I understand marco@'s
reply correctly, adding the two chipsets in the diff would be a
correct representation of what the driver supports already. If you'd
prefer to wait with chan
recent commit to pirofti made me wonder why don't we take an advantage
of the 64 bit bswap instruction on amd64?
Index: arch/amd64/include/endian.h
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/src/sys/arch/amd64/include/endian.h,v
retrieving revision 1.3
Hi,
When relaying unidirectional tcp traffic, relayd handles session
timeouts in a strange way.
A connection that is constantly sending data from the client to the
server will always trigger the session timeout. In contrast, if
the data is only transfered from the server to the client, the
sessi
Hi.
If someone has te vte (r6040 chip) network interface please, test this diff.
It solves problems like these:
> First, it seems that dhclient don't work on vte.
> Second, it seems vte looses network after minute(s) of inactivity
> (machine don't responds to ping etc).
> Network restores when I ty
12 matches
Mail list logo
