On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:19:43AM +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 01:39:18AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
$ c++ -pedantic -c a.c
In file included from /usr/include/g++/memory:60,
from /usr/include/g++/string:48,
from a.c:1:
Hi,
I came across a real-world scenario where network traffic stopped due to
interrupt starvation with the em driver, tested with a few different
cards (on a network/interface where no packets were received). This is
what caused it. I had two computers with a cable directly connected on a
small
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 15:22 +0200, Erik Lax wrote:
Hi,
I came across a real-world scenario where network traffic stopped due to
interrupt starvation with the em driver, tested with a few different
cards (on a network/interface where no packets were received). This is
what caused it. I had
On 5/10/12 3:41 PM, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
That's a great find. In fact, you're right, em_start() a few lines up
should be done after em_update_link_status because of the link_active.
The following diff makes it work the same way ix(4) does. Please verify
that it fixes the problem.
Thanks,
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:19 AM, Marc Espie es...@nerim.net wrote:
#define __glibcxx_max(T) \
- (__glibcxx_signed (T) ? ((T)1 __glibcxx_digits (T)) - 1 : ~(T)0)
+ (__glibcxx_signed (T) ? \
+ (T)1 (__glibcxx_digits (T) - 1)) - 1) 1) + 1) : ~(T)0)
+
How about (T)(((unsigned T)1
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 08:46:26AM -0700, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:19 AM, Marc Espie es...@nerim.net wrote:
#define __glibcxx_max(T) \
- (__glibcxx_signed (T) ? ((T)1 __glibcxx_digits (T)) - 1 : ~(T)0)
+ (__glibcxx_signed (T) ? \
+ (T)1
I'm pretty sure unsigned int is never a signed type.
Oh even if it's not signed that ternary branch will still be in code. I
see. Hm.
On May 10, 2012 9:23 AM, Matthew Dempsky matt...@dempsky.org wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 08:46:26AM -0700, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:19 AM, Marc Espie es...@nerim.net wrote:
#define __glibcxx_max(T) \
- (__glibcxx_signed (T) ? ((T)1 __glibcxx_digits (T)) - 1 : ~(T)0)
+ (__glibcxx_signed (T) ? \
+ (T)1
Look, landry just reminded me that I forgot to commit this. It was mostly
awaiting test results, and we've been running with this for almost two
months.
If you think something else is better, take it upstream, since I actually
took the fix from recent gcc, and I'd prefer to avoid diverging
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 05:00:19PM +, Miod Vallat wrote:
Look, landry just reminded me that I forgot to commit this. It was mostly
awaiting test results, and we've been running with this for almost two
months.
If you think something else is better, take it upstream, since I
Para visualizar correctamente este newsletter ingresa a
http://news1.bonuscupon.com.ar/r.html?uid=1.d.295h.5s.p7d8em4epv
Hi,
here is a solution to the problem I posted on bugs@ about pf logging
incoming UDP packets to port 0 as pass while being blocked instead.
action is added to pflog_packet() arguments.
I tried it and works.
Here are the diffs:
--- if_pflog.c 2012-05-10 20:04:40.16484 +0200
+++
I'm looking for oks on this diff to commit it.
* Leonardo Guardati leona...@guardati.it [2012-05-10 21:29]:
Hi,
here is a solution to the problem I posted on bugs@ about pf logging
incoming UDP packets to port 0 as pass while being blocked instead.
action is added to pflog_packet()
This patch fixes the invalid uptime for interface which are not active
(no link). When ldpd is running on an interface with no link it shows a
invalid value.
Steps to reproduce:
1 - Configure ldpd on an interface without link
2 - Start ldpd
3 - Run 'ldpctl show interfaces'
Bugged result:
15 matches
Mail list logo
