On 2000-12-08 00:38 -0800, Guy Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Both FreeBSD and OpenBSD have the maximum buffer size for BPF as
512KB
in the top of the CVS tree; NetBSD still has it as 32K.)
You can change both the default and maximum BPF buffer sizes at
run time (affecting an subsequent
OK, OK, I *promise* I'll think twice before posting next time :)
Here's a revised patch - a kern.warp_period = 0 signifies no direction
change, for those who prefer the old behavior.
G'luck,
Peter
--
This sentence no verb.
Patch against -current:
Index:
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 11:13:12PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
OK. I have a partial start on the serial/parallel cards. It isn't
attaching anything yet, but should give people an idea on the
direction I'd like to head.
As part of this work, I'll likely remove pci attachment of sio, and
So.. if anybody else is using the warp screen saver, here's a little patch
to make it reverse direction from time to time; as my boss put it, "I don't
know about you, but an hour of your screen rolling over to the right makes
me dizzy." :)
This one defines two sysctl's - kern.warp_dir (zero to
Peter Pentchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This one defines two sysctl's - kern.warp_dir (zero to roll to the left,
non-zero to roll the other way), and kern.warp_period (number of iterations
before changing direction). The warp_period is measured in.. seconds, isn't
it - how often the saver
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 05:01:22PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
Peter Pentchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This one defines two sysctl's - kern.warp_dir (zero to roll to the left,
non-zero to roll the other way), and kern.warp_period (number of iterations
before changing direction).
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 06:03:46PM +0200, Peter Pentchev wrote:
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 05:01:22PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
Peter Pentchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This one defines two sysctl's - kern.warp_dir (zero to roll to the left,
non-zero to roll the other way), and
:I feel like a dolt here, but could you run these deltas by
:me or alc?
:
:Shouldn't it be using bogus_page here?
:
:--
:-Alfred Perlstein - [[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Let me respond to -hackers here. My commit comment isn't
that good.
Lets say you have a normal
Peter Pentchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
SYSCTL_DECL(_kern_saver);
SYSCTL_DECL is for declaring a node that's defined elsewhere. You
should use the following instead:
SYSCTL_NODE(_kern, OID_AUTO, saver, CTLFLAG_RW, NULL, "Screensavers");
There's no substitute for reading src/sys/sys/sysctl.h.
Dan Kegel wrote:
...
Don't jump to conclusions. He's honestly trying to
understand what the optimal interface would be.
Let him catch up. Help him understand the requirements
which motivated the kqueue design and why his proposed
system call does not meet them.
His role right now is to
I am currently at IETF 49, where I have moved from my old wi card to the
new Cisco 342, which is an an card, since Cisco acquired them. The 342
does 128-bit or less encryption at 11 meg, thus it was a worthy
investment. However, pccard.conf does not have an entry for the card,
since it was
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 06:03:00PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
Peter Pentchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
SYSCTL_DECL(_kern_saver);
SYSCTL_DECL is for declaring a node that's defined elsewhere. You
should use the following instead:
SYSCTL_NODE(_kern, OID_AUTO, saver, CTLFLAG_RW,
Any others at IETF? I am not far from where it's being held and getting a
mini-freebswd group together for food would rule ;)
Email me off list if you're there!
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Jonathan "Taz" Mischo wrote:
I am currently at IETF 49, where I have moved from my old wi card to the
new
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jonathan "\"Taz\"" Mischo writes:
: #Cisco 340 series 802.11B wireless NICs
: card "Cisco Systems" "340 Series Wireless LAN Adapter"
: config 0x5 "an" ?
: insert /etc/pccard_ether $device
: remove /sbin/ifconfig $device delete
This already
unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Jonathan \"Taz\" Mischo writes:
| I am currently at IETF 49, where I have moved from my old wi card to the
|
| new Cisco 342, which is an an card, since Cisco acquired them. The 342
| does 128-bit or less encryption at 11 meg, thus it was a worthy
| investment. However, pccard.conf does not
On 2000-12-11 10:49 +0100, Loris Degioanni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# sysctl -w debug.bpf_bufsize=32768 debug.bpf_maxbufsize=4194304
makes the default buffer size 32K and limits the size to 4MB, for
example.
Notice however that in pcap-bpf.c, pcap_open_live() forces the buffer
size
I am running FreeBSd 4.2 on machine with 2 Pentium II CPU's
When I run "top", it shows my processes with 0.00% CPU
Is there a problem with top, or my machine??
last pid: 34959; load averages: 0.10, 0.06, 0.05up 8+05:27:27
21:05:14
41 processes: 1 running, 40 sleeping
CPU states: 0.0%
Hi,
we have some programs using aio_*being
ported to FreeBSD,
I heard that aio in FreeBSD is not very stable, but what is
its problem? can anyone tell me, and we may avoid
it.
Regards,
XuYifeng
* xuyifeng [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001211 21:08] wrote:
Hi,
we have some programs using aio_* being ported to FreeBSD,
I heard that aio in FreeBSD is not very stable, but what is
its problem? can anyone tell me, and we may avoid it.
It should be stable now, Alan Cox has done a lot of work
I'm using 4.2 stable, but why does LINT say that there are some stable issue? is it
document bug?
XuYifeng
- Original Message -
From: Alfred Perlstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: xuyifeng [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 1:31 PM
Subject: Re:
* xuyifeng [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001211 22:31] wrote:
I'm using 4.2 stable, but why does LINT say that there are some stable issue? is it
document bug?
as far as i know, yes.
XuYifeng
- Original Message -
From: Alfred Perlstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: xuyifeng [EMAIL PROTECTED]
22 matches
Mail list logo
