Re: Panic: @r323525: iflib
John Baldwin wrote: igb0:port 0xe020-0xe03f mem 0xfb22-0xfb23,0xfb244000-0xfb247fff irq 43 at device 0.0 on pci6 igb0: attach_pre capping queues at 8 igb0: using 1024 tx descriptors and 1024 rx descriptors igb0: msix_init qsets capped at 8 igb0: pxm cpus: 4 queue msgs: 9 admincnt: 1 igb0: trying 4 rx queues 4 tx queues igb0: Using MSIX interrupts with 9 vectors igb0: allocated for 4 tx_queues igb0: allocated for 4 rx_queues taskqgroup_attach_cpu: qid not found for cpu=0 igb0: taskqgroup_attach_cpu failed 22 igb0: Failed to allocate que int 0 err: 22 igb0: IFDI_MSIX_INTR_ASSIGN failed 22 device_attach: igb0 attach returned 22 This is on a quad-core CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-1620 v3. It fails both with SMT enabled or disabled in the BIOS. Do you have EARLY_AP_STARTUP enabled? Do you have em in the kernel, or do you load the module? ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Several minor annoyances on Current
Beeblebrox wrote: Hello. Several questions for 11-Current: * I keep getting appname.core (gedit.core, midori.core, etc) files being created either in /home/myuser or in the folder I run the command in on terminal emulator (for example if I'm in ~/mydocs on terminal and run $ gedit filename, that folder gets a gedit.core file). Any way to stop this? I use this in /etc/sysctl.conf: kern.corefile=/tmp/cores/%N.core (You need to create the directory manually) ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Future of pf / firewall in FreeBSD ? - does it have one ?
krad wrote: all of that is true, but you are missing the point. Having two versions of pf on the bsd's at the user level, is a bad thing. It confuses people, which puts them off. Its a classic case of divide an conquer for other platforms. I really like the idea of the openpf version, that has been mentioned in this thread. It would be awesome if it ended up as a supported linux thing as well, so the world could be rid of iptables. However i guess thats just an unrealistic dream No, the point was that matching OpenBSDs pf syntax for the sake of the Google results isn't a valid reason to change it. I'm not saying there aren't any valid reasons, just that useless search results isn't one of them. As for my opinion of the rule format changing, I'm fine with it as long as it happens on a major version release (ie: 11.0) and is documented. If I want to use the old pf, I'll use an old FreeBSD. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Future of pf / firewall in FreeBSD ? - does it have one ?
krad wrote: that is true and I have not problem using man pages, however thats not the way most of the world work and search engines arent exactly new either. We should be trying to engage more people not less, and part of that is reaching out. One of FreeBSD's historic strengths has been the handbook and generally good quality documentation. There is no way that the FreeBSD project can ensure that all Google results for everyone in the world are FreeBSD related good documentation, but it can ensure that the documentation included with FreeBSD is accurate and usable, and it can ensure that the FreeBSD documentation is available via the internet. Aside from blindly following whatever generates the most Google results (an obviously broken solution), what exactly can the FreeBSD project do to ensure that when someone Googles a problem they will end up with a correct FreeBSD solution? ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org