John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> Hans Petter Selasky wrote this message on Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 10:12
> +0200:
> > I'm asking for some input on the attached m_dup() patch, so that
> > existing functionality or dependencies are not broken. The
> > background
> > for the change is to allow m_dup() to defrag
Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Would it be better if my patch used the PAGE_SIZE clusters instead
> > of
> > the 16K ones? Then it should not be affected by memory
> > defragmentation.
> > Thanks for shedding some light into this area?
> >
Well, I ran into the threads stuck on "btal
Hi!
The flowid value has way, way too many possible meanings but it's
always been a mostly-static value. I'm worried about overriding it
with multiple meanings that cause features to not work at all
together.
So I'd rather leave the flowid/flowtype as it currently is so it
doesn't upset packet re
On 07/08/14 10:46, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm working on a new feature which will allow TCP connections to be
> timing controlled by the ethernet hardware driver, actually the mlxen
> driver. The main missing piece in the kernel is to allow the mbuf's
> flowid value to be overwritten
08.07.2014 19:25, Allan Jude пишет:
> On 07/08/2014 10:47, Boris Samorodov wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Just FIY since nothing relevant was found at google.
>>
>> I was upgrading my CURRENT system to rev r268233 from a one-or-two
>> weeks old system. The system was created years ago and had rather
>> ol
Hi,
I'm working on a new feature which will allow TCP connections to be
timing controlled by the ethernet hardware driver, actually the mlxen
driver. The main missing piece in the kernel is to allow the mbuf's
flowid value to be overwritten in "struct inpcb" once the connection is
established
On Sun, 6 Jul 2014 16:33+0300, Aleksandr Rybalko wrote:
> Hi,
>
> so if i get it right, you get expected results, right?
>
> If so, please check key combinations which is different, to get correct
> results.
> And if all is ok, send me new maps please.
> If it is not correct, let as know what i
On 07/08/2014 10:47, Boris Samorodov wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Just FIY since nothing relevant was found at google.
>
> I was upgrading my CURRENT system to rev r268233 from a one-or-two
> weeks old system. The system was created years ago and had rather
> old zfsboot code. So, after upgrading and reb
Hi All,
Just FIY since nothing relevant was found at google.
I was upgrading my CURRENT system to rev r268233 from a one-or-two
weeks old system. The system was created years ago and had rather
old zfsboot code. So, after upgrading and rebooting I got the error
right after BIOS POST...:
-
"ZF
Hi,
Would it be better if my patch used the PAGE_SIZE clusters instead of
the 16K ones? Then it should not be affected by memory defragmentation.
Thanks for shedding some light into this area?
--HPS
Hi,
Updated patch attached.
--HPS
=== sys/kern/uipc_mbuf.c
10 matches
Mail list logo