Re: [kvm-devel] QEMU PIC indirection patch for in-kernel APIC work
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 08:36:14AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > That is not the common case. Nor is it true when there is a > mismatch between the card's capabilties and guest expectations and > constraints. For example, guest memory is not physically contiguous > so a NIC that won't do scatter/gather will require bouncing (or an > iommu, but that's not here yet). Actually, Allen Key from Intel just posted the first VT-d patches to xen-devel a couple of days ago. I wonder if anyone is working on kvm support (which would require Linux support). Cheers, Muli - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: mm snapshot broken-out-2007-04-07-03-27.tar.gz uploaded
Hi! > > > The mm snapshot broken-out-2007-04-07-03-27.tar.gz has been uploaded to > > > > > > > > > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/mm/broken-out-2007-04-07-03-27.tar.gz > > > > > > It contains the following patches against 2.6.21-rc6: > > > > suspend-to-disk doesn't work when pktgen module is loaded. > > > > Stopping kernel threads timed out after 20 seconds (2 tasks refusing to > > freeze): > > kpktgend_0 > > kpktgend_1 > > Restarting tasks ... done. > > swsusp: Basic memory bitmaps freed > > This? > > --- a/net/core/pktgen.c~pktgen-add-try_to_freeze > +++ a/net/core/pktgen.c > @@ -128,6 +128,7 @@ > #include > #include > #include > +#include > #include > #include > #include > @@ -3325,6 +3326,8 @@ static int pktgen_thread_worker(void *ar > t->control &= ~(T_REMDEV); > } > > + try_to_freeze(); > + > set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); I'd actually prefer freezing it while in INTERRUPTIBLE, but both versions are probably okay. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [XFRM]: esp: fix skb_tail_pointer conversion bug
On 4/8/07, Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [XFRM]: esp: fix skb_tail_pointer conversion bug Fix incorrect switch of "trailer" skb by "skb" during skb_tail_pointer conversion: - *(u8*)(trailer->tail - 1) = top_iph->protocol; + *(skb_tail_pointer(skb) - 1) = top_iph->protocol; - *(u8 *)(trailer->tail - 1) = *skb_network_header(skb); + *(skb_tail_pointer(skb) - 1) = *skb_network_header(skb); Signed-off-by: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thanks Patrick, for this one and the other fixes for the offset conversion. - Arnaldo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: mm snapshot broken-out-2007-04-07-03-27.tar.gz uploaded
On 07/04/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The mm snapshot broken-out-2007-04-07-03-27.tar.gz has been uploaded to ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/mm/broken-out-2007-04-07-03-27.tar.gz Thomas, I get a lot of "NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 0a" messages, when I run netperf2 test. http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/files/tbf/bitis-gabonica/broken-out-2007-04-07-03-27/mm-config http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/files/tbf/bitis-gabonica/broken-out-2007-04-07-03-27/mm-dmesg2 Regards, Michal -- Michal K. K. Piotrowski LTG - Linux Testers Group (PL) (http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/ltg/) LTG - Linux Testers Group (EN) (http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/linux_testers_group_en/) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: two gateways with one NIC
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 04:35:53AM +0100, W Agtail wrote: > Hope you can help. > > I have the following setup using LVS (Linux Virtual Servers): > > LAN192.168.0.0/24- <= CLIENTS > | | > | | > LVS1LVS2 > vip1: 192.168.0.111 vip2: 192.168.0.121 > eth0: 192.168.0.110 eth0: 192.168.0.120 > eth1: 10.18.35.10 eth1: 10.18.35.20 > gw1: 10.18.35.11 gw2: 10.18.35.21 > | | > | | > LAN10.18.35.0/24- > | | > | | > Apache> WEB1 10.18.35.51:8088 WEB2 10.18.35.52:8088 > Apache> WEB1 10.18.35.51:8089 WEB2 10.18.35.52:8088 > > > ### LVS ### > The two LVS servers have a VIP and a GW. > LVS1 & LVS2 have ip_forward set to 1. > > LVS1 has the following iptables: > iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -j DNAT --to 192.168.0.111 > iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j SNAT --to 192.168.0.111 > with ipvsadm forwarding vip1:8088 to web1:8088 & web2:8088 > > LVS2 has the following iptables: > iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -j DNAT --to 192.168.0.121 > iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j SNAT --to 192.168.0.121 > with ipvsadm forwarding vip1:8089 to web1:8089 & web2:8089 > > ### WEB ### > The two Web servers have 2 virtual web servers listening on ports 8088 & > 8089 and have the following iptables & iproute2 config: > iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 8088 -i eth0 -j MARK > --set-mark 1 > iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 8089 -i eth0 -j MARK > --set-mark 2 > > ip route add table 1 default via 10.18.35.11 dev eth0 > ip route add table 2 default via 10.18.35.21 dev eth0 > > ip rule add fwmark 1 table 1 > ip rule add fwmark 2 table 2 > > WEB1's default GW is set to gw1. > WEB2's default GW is set to gw2. > > CLIENTS should be able to connect to vip1:8088 and vip2:8089 > > ### MY PROBLEM ### > > If i set WEB2's default GW to gw1, everything works as expected (as I > now only have one GW). > But when trying to set WEB2's default GW to gw2, things don't work. > For example, if i was to run: curl vip1:8088 from a CLIENT, I would be > able to connect to web1:8088 via LVS OK, but unable to connect to > web2:8088 should LVS take me to web2. > > Its as though the iptables/ip route settings are not working as they > should. > > Any ideas what I'm doing wrong? > Many thanks, W Agtail. Well give I am not sure what you are trying to do, I will take a guess. I think you are trying to have redundant load balancers and multiple web servers behind those two load balancers. Here is how I would do it: LAN192.168.0.0/24- <= CLIENTS | | | | LVS1LVS2 vrrp: 192.168.0.110 (linked)vrrp: 192.168.0.110 (linked) eth0: 192.168.0.111 eth0: 192.168.0.112 eth1: 10.18.35.11 eth1: 10.18.35.12 vrrp: 10.18.35.10 (master) vrrp: 10.18.35.10 (slave) | | | | LAN10.18.35.0/24- | | | | Apache> WEB1 10.18.35.51:8088 WEB2 10.18.35.52:8088 Apache> WEB1 10.18.35.51:8089 WEB2 10.18.35.52:8088 So using VRRP to have a shared virtual IP between the two load balancers, any client can connect to 192.168.0.110 and be sent through to one of the web servers. The server side interface also has a VRRP virtual IP shared between the two load balancers, which is linked to the other virtual IP, so that if the link goes down on one side of the load balancer, it will automatically drop the virtual IP on both sides to let the slave machine take over control of the IP. To the clients this should be pretty transparent since they don't need to know the IP changed, other than the momentary change in mac address (letting vrrp play with the mac address just causes a terrible mess in my experience, and I have had much better luck by simply changing IPs and letting the clients relear the new mac). keepalived's vrrp works very well (Hmm, actually I think I made some fixes to it, which I don't remember if I sent back upstream yet. I should check that tomorrow). You could run multiple vrrps per interface if you want to somehow have one be the master of one IP and the other the master of another to allow different traffic to use each load balancer by default, but everything going thr
Re: two gateways with one NIC
Hi, and thanks very much for your response. Your guess sounds spot on. As you've mentioned, using one sync group works quite well and gives you an active/passive LVS cluster (not sure of correct terminology here - sorry), thus all traffic goes via LVS1, leaving LVS2 not doing much unless LVS1 fails. I thought it would be a cool idea to setup two sync groups to ultimately handle several Apache instances on the two Apache servers. This way, both LVS servers would be used in a kind of active/active fashion and would be a master/slave to each other. For example, vip1 & gw1 could possibly end up on LVS2 with vip2 & gw2. The challenge though in having two sync groups, with two GWs. I would like all traffic coming through vip1 to be returned via gw1 and all traffic coming through vip2 to be returned via gw2. I am using keepalived (v1.1.13) with two sync groups. One with vip1 & gw1 and another with vip2 & gw2. Port 8088 will always comes through vip1/gw1, load balancing to web1:8088 and web2:8088. Port 8089 will always come through vip2/gw2, load balancing to web1:8089 and web2:8089. Web1's default gw is set to gw1 and web2's default gw is set to gw2. But this causing issues when say, vip1:8088 gets forwarded through gw1 to web2:8088 and doesn't get back back via gw2. To get round this, I need something like iproute2 on web2 to send all 8088 traffic back through gw1. Hope this makes a little more sense to what I'm trying to achieve? Thanks again. On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 11:01 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 04:35:53AM +0100, W Agtail wrote: > > Hope you can help. > > > > I have the following setup using LVS (Linux Virtual Servers): > > > > LAN192.168.0.0/24- <= CLIENTS > > | | > > | | > > LVS1LVS2 > > vip1: 192.168.0.111 vip2: 192.168.0.121 > > eth0: 192.168.0.110 eth0: 192.168.0.120 > > eth1: 10.18.35.10 eth1: 10.18.35.20 > > gw1: 10.18.35.11 gw2: 10.18.35.21 > > | | > > | | > > LAN10.18.35.0/24- > > | | > > | | > > Apache> WEB1 10.18.35.51:8088 WEB2 10.18.35.52:8088 > > Apache> WEB1 10.18.35.51:8089 WEB2 10.18.35.52:8088 > > > > > > ### LVS ### > > The two LVS servers have a VIP and a GW. > > LVS1 & LVS2 have ip_forward set to 1. > > > > LVS1 has the following iptables: > > iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -j DNAT --to 192.168.0.111 > > iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j SNAT --to 192.168.0.111 > > with ipvsadm forwarding vip1:8088 to web1:8088 & web2:8088 > > > > LVS2 has the following iptables: > > iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -j DNAT --to 192.168.0.121 > > iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j SNAT --to 192.168.0.121 > > with ipvsadm forwarding vip1:8089 to web1:8089 & web2:8089 > > > > ### WEB ### > > The two Web servers have 2 virtual web servers listening on ports 8088 & > > 8089 and have the following iptables & iproute2 config: > > iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 8088 -i eth0 -j MARK > > --set-mark 1 > > iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 8089 -i eth0 -j MARK > > --set-mark 2 > > > > ip route add table 1 default via 10.18.35.11 dev eth0 > > ip route add table 2 default via 10.18.35.21 dev eth0 > > > > ip rule add fwmark 1 table 1 > > ip rule add fwmark 2 table 2 > > > > WEB1's default GW is set to gw1. > > WEB2's default GW is set to gw2. > > > > CLIENTS should be able to connect to vip1:8088 and vip2:8089 > > > > ### MY PROBLEM ### > > > > If i set WEB2's default GW to gw1, everything works as expected (as I > > now only have one GW). > > But when trying to set WEB2's default GW to gw2, things don't work. > > For example, if i was to run: curl vip1:8088 from a CLIENT, I would be > > able to connect to web1:8088 via LVS OK, but unable to connect to > > web2:8088 should LVS take me to web2. > > > > Its as though the iptables/ip route settings are not working as they > > should. > > > > Any ideas what I'm doing wrong? > > Many thanks, W Agtail. > > Well give I am not sure what you are trying to do, I will take a guess. > I think you are trying to have redundant load balancers and multiple web > servers behind those two load balancers. Here is how I would do it: > > LAN192.168.0.0/24- <= CLIENTS > | | > | | > LVS1LVS2 > vrrp: 192.168.0.110 (linked)vrrp: 192.168.0.110 (linked) > eth0: 192.168.0.111 eth0: 192.168.0.112 > > eth1: 10
Re: [PATCH] ip(7) IP_PMTUDISC_PROBE
> > Document new IP_PMTUDISC_PROBE value for IP_MTU_DISCOVERY. (Going into > > 2.6.22). Hi John, Thanks -- accepted -- fix will appear in man-pages-2.47. Andi: thanks for pointing John in the right direction. Cheers, Michael > > > > > > diff -rU3 man-pages-2.43-a/man7/ip.7 man-pages-2.43-b/man7/ip.7 > > --- man-pages-2.43-a/man7/ip.7 2006-09-26 09:54:29.0 -0400 > > +++ man-pages-2.43-b/man7/ip.7 2007-03-27 15:46:18.0 -0400 -- Michael Kerrisk maintainer of Linux man pages Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 Want to help with man page maintenance? Grab the latest tarball at http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/docs/manpages/ read the HOWTOHELP file and grep the source files for 'FIXME'. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: two gateways with one NIC
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 05:10:15PM +0100, W Agtail wrote: > Hi, and thanks very much for your response. Your guess sounds spot on. > > As you've mentioned, using one sync group works quite well and gives you > an active/passive LVS cluster (not sure of correct terminology here - > sorry), thus all traffic goes via LVS1, leaving LVS2 not doing much > unless LVS1 fails. > > I thought it would be a cool idea to setup two sync groups to ultimately > handle several Apache instances on the two Apache servers. This way, > both LVS servers would be used in a kind of active/active fashion and > would be a master/slave to each other. For example, vip1 & gw1 could > possibly end up on LVS2 with vip2 & gw2. > > The challenge though in having two sync groups, with two GWs. I would > like all traffic coming through vip1 to be returned via gw1 and all > traffic coming through vip2 to be returned via gw2. > > I am using keepalived (v1.1.13) with two sync groups. One with vip1 & > gw1 and another with vip2 & gw2. Port 8088 will always comes through > vip1/gw1, load balancing to web1:8088 and web2:8088. Port 8089 will > always come through vip2/gw2, load balancing to web1:8089 and web2:8089. > > Web1's default gw is set to gw1 and web2's default gw is set to gw2. But > this causing issues when say, vip1:8088 gets forwarded through gw1 to > web2:8088 and doesn't get back back via gw2. To get round this, I need > something like iproute2 on web2 to send all 8088 traffic back through > gw1. You have to set up both web servers to use the same gateway. You can setup an alternate routing table and tag packets from the apache on port 8089 to use the other gateway IP instead, but any traffic handled by LVS1 _must_ be returned through LVS1. So both web servers have to have identical configuration (which is also much simpler to maintain). You can use iptables to tag packets matching the source port of 8089 and have ip route route all packets with that specific tag using an alternate routing table, which will then use the other LVS. So if you have two VRRP groups, you have port 8088 return by the regular default gateway going to the first group IP, and you have tagging flag all port 8089 packets to go through the second vrrp IP. If an LVS fails, both vrrp groups end up on the working LVS and everything still works, but while both works, one LVS handles one port, and the other the other port. Of course routing packets is hardly a lot of work, so it may not really be worth the bother to do anything extra with two groups. You really have to configure both web servers identically though in terms of routes. > Hope this makes a little more sense to what I'm trying to achieve? > Thanks again. -- Len Sorensen - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: APIC error on 32-bit kernel
[Adding linux-kernel to the cc list, hoping for wider exposure.] On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:08:17 -0500 Jay Cliburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We're trying to track down the source of a problem that occurs > whenever the atl1 network driver is activated on a 32-bit 2.6.21-rc4 and -rc5, -rc6, 2.6.20.x, 2.6.19.3, and probably others. > We can load the driver just fine, but whenever we activate the > network, we see APIC errors (a sample of them are shown here, > captured from a serial console): > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# echo 8 > /proc/sys/kernel/printk > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# [ 93.942012] process `sysctl' is using deprecated > sysctl (sysc. > [ 94.396609] atl1: eth0 link is up 1000 Mbps full duplex > [ 94.498887] APIC error on CPU0: 00(08) > [ 94.498534] APIC error on CPU1: 00(08) > [ 94.550079] APIC error on CPU0: 08(08) > [ 94.549725] APIC error on CPU1: 08(08) > [ 94.600915] APIC error on CPU1: 08(08) > [ 94.601276] APIC error on CPU0: 08(08) > [ 94.652108] APIC error on CPU1: 08(08) > [ 94.652470] APIC error on CPU0: 08(08) > [ 94.703659] APIC error on CPU0: 08(08) > [ 94.703305] APIC error on CPU1: 08(08) > [ 94.754852] APIC error on CPU0: 08(40) > [ 94.806045] APIC error on CPU0: 40(08) > [ 94.805692] APIC error on CPU1: 08(08) > [ 94.857238] APIC error on CPU0: 08(08) > [ 94.856884] APIC error on CPU1: 08(08) > [ 94.908432] APIC error on CPU0: 08(08) > [ 94.908078] APIC error on CPU1: 08(08) > [snip, more of the same] > [ 98.901156] APIC error on CPU1: 08(08) > [ 98.952702] APIC error on CPU0: 08(08) > [ 98.952349] APIC error on CPU1: 08(08) > [ 99.003895] APIC error on CPU0: 08(08) > [ 99.003542] APIC error on CPU1: 08(08) > > The machine hangs for about 5-10 seconds, then spontaneously reboots > without further console output. I can prompt an oops by pinging my router while the apic errors are scrolling by. > > This is an Asus M2V (Via K8T890) motherboard. > > The problem does not occur on a 32-bit kernel if we boot with > pci=nomsi, and it doesn't occur at all on a 64-bit kernel on the same > motherboard. > > We also do not see this problem on Intel-based motherboards, with > either 32- or 64-bit kernels. A full raft of documentation -- including acpidump and linux-firmware-kit output, console capture, kernel config, lspci -vvxxx (with apic=debug boot option), dmesg, and /proc/interrupts -- is available at http://www.hogchain.net/m2v/apic-problem/ If this is a motherboard problem, that's fine; I'd just like to know the details so I tell users something more than "it's a motherboard problem." Thanks, Jay - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: two gateways with one NIC
Hi, please refer to comments below. On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 14:22 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 05:10:15PM +0100, W Agtail wrote: > > Hi, and thanks very much for your response. Your guess sounds spot on. > > > > As you've mentioned, using one sync group works quite well and gives you > > an active/passive LVS cluster (not sure of correct terminology here - > > sorry), thus all traffic goes via LVS1, leaving LVS2 not doing much > > unless LVS1 fails. > > > > I thought it would be a cool idea to setup two sync groups to ultimately > > handle several Apache instances on the two Apache servers. This way, > > both LVS servers would be used in a kind of active/active fashion and > > would be a master/slave to each other. For example, vip1 & gw1 could > > possibly end up on LVS2 with vip2 & gw2. > > > > The challenge though in having two sync groups, with two GWs. I would > > like all traffic coming through vip1 to be returned via gw1 and all > > traffic coming through vip2 to be returned via gw2. > > > > I am using keepalived (v1.1.13) with two sync groups. One with vip1 & > > gw1 and another with vip2 & gw2. Port 8088 will always comes through > > vip1/gw1, load balancing to web1:8088 and web2:8088. Port 8089 will > > always come through vip2/gw2, load balancing to web1:8089 and web2:8089. > > > > Web1's default gw is set to gw1 and web2's default gw is set to gw2. But > > this causing issues when say, vip1:8088 gets forwarded through gw1 to > > web2:8088 and doesn't get back back via gw2. To get round this, I need > > something like iproute2 on web2 to send all 8088 traffic back through > > gw1. > > You have to set up both web servers to use the same gateway. You can > setup an alternate routing table and tag packets from the apache on port > 8089 to use the other gateway IP instead, but any traffic handled by > LVS1 _must_ be returned through LVS1. So both web servers have to have > identical configuration (which is also much simpler to maintain). > > You can use iptables to tag packets matching the source port of 8089 and > have ip route route all packets with that specific tag using an > alternate routing table, which will then use the other LVS. > > So if you have two VRRP groups, you have port 8088 return by the regular > default gateway going to the first group IP, and you have tagging flag > all port 8089 packets to go through the second vrrp IP. If an LVS > fails, both vrrp groups end up on the working LVS and everything still > works, but while both works, one LVS handles one port, and the other the > other port. Of course routing packets is hardly a lot of work, so it > may not really be worth the bother to do anything extra with two groups. > You really have to configure both web servers identically though in > terms of routes. This is what I'm trying to achieve with the following iptables/iproute2 configuration on both web servers: iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 8088 -i eth0 -j LOG --log-prefix "fwmark 1: " iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 8089 -i eth0 -j LOG --log-prefix "fwmark 2: " iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 8088 -i eth0 -j MARK --set-mark 1 iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 8089 -i eth0 -j MARK --set-mark 2 iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -m mark --mark 1 -j LOG --log-prefix "marked 1: " iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -m mark --mark 2 -j LOG --log-prefix "marked 2: " ip route add table 1 default via 10.18.35.11 dev eth0 # GW1 ip route add table 2 default via 10.18.35.21 dev eth0 # GW2 ip rule add fwmark 1 table 1 ip rule add fwmark 2 table 2 On web2, the default gw is set to gw2 and in /var/log/messages, I can see packets appear to be marked. However, for some reason, 8088 is still routing back via gw2 (default gw) rather than being routed via gw1, which I'm trying to do with the above ip rules etc. Is the above the correct syntax? or I guess I could totally be missing the plot? Many thanks for your time on this one. > > Hope this makes a little more sense to what I'm trying to achieve? > > Thanks again. > > -- > Len Sorensen - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
baycom_ser_fdx changes in git-netdev-all
On sparc64: drivers/net/hamradio/baycom_ser_fdx.c: In function `ser12_open': drivers/net/hamradio/baycom_ser_fdx.c:417: error: `NR_IRQS' undeclared (first use in this function) sorry, I should have picked this up earlier, but I've been skipping sparc64 builds because I incorrectly thought it was missing utrace support. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [kvm-devel] QEMU PIC indirection patch for in-kernel APIC work
On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 08:36 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > Rusty Russell wrote: > > Hi Avi, > > > > I don't think you've thought about this very hard. The receive copy is > > completely independent with whether the packet is going to the guest via > > a kernel driver or via userspace, so not relevant. > > > > A packet received in the kernel cannot be made available to userspace in > a safe manner without a copy, as it will not be aligned with page > boundaries, so userspace cannot examine the packet until after one copy > has occured. Hi Avi! I'm a little puzzled by your response. Hmm... lguest's userspace network frontend does exactly as many copies as Ingo's in-host-kernel code. One from the Guest, one to the Guest. Does that clarify? Rusty. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[PATCH] CONFIG_PACKET_MMAP should depend on MMU
The option CONFIG_PACKET_MMAP should depend on MMU. Signed-off-by: Aubrey.Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- net/packet/Kconfig |2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/net/packet/Kconfig b/net/packet/Kconfig index 34ff93f..959c272 100644 --- a/net/packet/Kconfig +++ b/net/packet/Kconfig @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ config PACKET config PACKET_MMAP bool "Packet socket: mmapped IO" - depends on PACKET + depends on PACKET && MMU help If you say Y here, the Packet protocol driver will use an IO mechanism that results in faster communication. -- 1.5.1 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 0/2] [iputils] MTU discovery changes
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:46:25 -0400), John Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says: > These add some changes that make tracepath a little more useful for > diagnosing MTU issues. The length flag helps distinguish between MTU > black holes and other types of black holes by allowing you to vary the > probe packet lengths. Using PMTUDISC_PROBE gives you the same results > on each run without having to flush the route cache, so you can see > where MTU changes in the path actually occur. > > The PMTUDISC_PROBE patch goes in should be conditional on whether the > corresponding kernel patch (just sent) goes in. Applied, thanks. --yoshfuji - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] [iputils] Add documentation for the -l flag.
Applied two documentation patches. Thanks. In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Tue, 3 Apr 2007 13:51:07 -0400), John Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says: > --- > doc/tracepath.sgml | 13 + > 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/doc/tracepath.sgml b/doc/tracepath.sgml > index 71eaa8d..c0f308b 100644 > --- a/doc/tracepath.sgml > +++ b/doc/tracepath.sgml > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ traces path to a network host discovering MTU along this > path > > > tracepath > +-l > > > > @@ -39,6 +40,18 @@ of UDP ports to maintain trace history. > > > > +OPTIONS > + > + > + > + > +Sets the initial packet length to +65536 for + > + > + > + > + > OUTPUT > > > -- > 1.5.0.2.gc260-dirty > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 1/2] [iputils] Fix asymm messages.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Tue, 3 Apr 2007 14:20:34 -0400), John Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says: > We should only print the asymm messages in tracepath/6 when you receive a > TTL expired message, because this is the only time when we'd expect the > same number of hops back as our TTL was set to for a symmetric path. applied. thanks. --yoshfuji - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 2/2] [iputils] Re-probe at same TTL after MTU reduction.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Tue, 3 Apr 2007 14:20:35 -0400), John Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says: > This fixes a bug that would miss a hop after an ICMP packet too big message, > since it would continue increase the TTL without probing again. Applied, thanks. --yoshfuji - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
