On 21 Aug 2016, at 19:18, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
> On 21.08.16 20:33, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>>> Does this make sense?
>>
>> Right. Let me go and look into it a little more. I think we may want
>> to revert the change (which just landed to -11, so maybe revert that
>> too) so I can test both of
On 21.08.16 20:33, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> Does this make sense?
>
> Right. Let me go and look into it a little more. I think we may want
> to revert the change (which just landed to -11, so maybe revert that
> too) so I can test both of them out for correctness.
>
> Andrey, I'm sorry for sugges
On 21 August 2016 at 07:42, Robert N. M. Watson wrote:
> On 20 Aug 2016, at 21:27, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
>> I wonder if the right-er thing to do here is to allow the cpuid to be
>> whatever it needs to be, but limit the cpuid lookups when it resolves
>> to a netisr array.
>>
>> that'd mean the hy
On 20 Aug 2016, at 21:27, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> I wonder if the right-er thing to do here is to allow the cpuid to be
> whatever it needs to be, but limit the cpuid lookups when it resolves
> to a netisr array.
>
> that'd mean the hybrid model would still return the current CPU up to
> the max C
On 17 August 2016 at 13:21, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
> Author: ae
> Date: Wed Aug 17 20:21:33 2016
> New Revision: 304313
> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/304313
>
> Log:
> Teach netisr_get_cpuid() to limit a given value to supported by netisr.
> Use netisr_get_cpuid() in netis
