https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202726
Garrett Cooper,425-314-3911 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org|gleb...@freebsd.org
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200619
Garrett Cooper,425-314-3911 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org|n...@freebsd.org
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200619
Garrett Cooper,425-314-3911 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|New |In Progress
--
You
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200619
--- Comment #3 from commit-h...@freebsd.org ---
A commit references this bug:
Author: ngie
Date: Sun Oct 25 04:37:01 UTC 2015
New revision: 289916
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/289916
Log:
Limit RESOLUTION_MAX to INT_MAX
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200619
--- Comment #2 from commit-h...@freebsd.org ---
A commit references this bug:
Author: ngie
Date: Sun Oct 25 04:04:25 UTC 2015
New revision: 289915
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/289915
Log:
Use 't' (bit-field) not 'b' (bi
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189805
Garrett Cooper,425-314-3911 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|In Progress |Open
--
You are rec
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189805
--- Comment #3 from Garrett Cooper,425-314-3911 ---
(In reply to Jilles Tjoelker from comment #2)
An assert and adding behavior so it would return as described in comment # 0
would be better than a segfault. We have a ton of applications a
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179422
Garrett Cooper,425-314-3911 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|In Progress |Closed
Resol
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178068
Garrett Cooper,425-314-3911 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org|bdrew...@freebsd.org
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171883
Garrett Cooper,425-314-3911 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |Overcome By Events
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=159745
Garrett Cooper,425-314-3911 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org|n...@freebsd.org
---
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=145233
Garrett Cooper,425-314-3911 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org|n...@freebsd.org
--
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=161439
Garrett Cooper,425-314-3911 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|In Progress |Open
--
You are rec
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195970
Martin Birgmeier changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|New |Closed
Resolution|---
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204005
Bug ID: 204005
Summary: [patch][pf] PF_ANEQ macro improperly compare IPv4
packets.
Product: Base System
Version: 11.0-CURRENT
Hardware: Any
OS: Any
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201958
--- Comment #3 from Adrian Chadd ---
ok, let's go see if I can find some RT305x and RT5350 hardware to test with.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
fr
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201958
--- Comment #2 from Emmanuel Vadot ---
The macros were removed cause they didn't work and I was too lazy at the time
to check what was the problem. And, of course, after I forgot to correct and
use them.
I don't have any RT305x hardware to
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201958
Adrian Chadd changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|New |In Progress
--
You are receiving t
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201958
Adrian Chadd changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||adr...@freebsd.org
--- Comment #1 f
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195970
--- Comment #7 from Larry Rosenman ---
I believe this can be closed now, as the OP posted that the tunable fixed it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201958
Kubilay Kocak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||freebsd-embed...@freebsd.or
21 matches
Mail list logo