On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 20:48 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Try it like this... completely untested and hence probably broken in
> some stupid and minor way, but testing is something for tomorrow, not
> Sunday night when I'm supposed to be cooking dinner.
This version seems to work, and as an adde
On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 12:05 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 07:01 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
> > Is the firmware multicast address limit the same for every firmware from
> > 5.0.x up to 9? Is it something that people with the firmware dev kit
> > can change with a recompile?
On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 20:48 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 15:38 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > On an SMP host, are you sure we can't end up setting the multicast list
> > > simultaneously on the two logical devices?
> >
> > (A: No.)
>
> Try it like this... completely
On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 07:01 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
> Is the firmware multicast address limit the same for every firmware from
> 5.0.x up to 9? Is it something that people with the firmware dev kit
> can change with a recompile? Because if it changes between any of the
> firmware revisions alr
On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 15:38 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On an SMP host, are you sure we can't end up setting the multicast list
> > simultaneously on the two logical devices?
>
> (A: No.)
Try it like this... completely untested and hence probably broken in
some stupid and minor way, but tes
> -- http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/21/334
+1
> -- http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/23/189
+1
I always mostly create patches which are checkpatch.pl clean,
even following the 80 columns rule mostly, but sometimes I
delibertaly ignored this rule.
For me, it should be a 132 columns rule :-)
___
On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 02:46 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 10:39:19 +0100 David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 02:17 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:44:12 +0100 David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
>
On Wed, 14 May 2008 10:39:19 +0100 David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 02:17 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:44:12 +0100 David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm sorry if that offends you, but making code more readable hel
On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 02:17 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:44:12 +0100 David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry if that offends you, but making code more readable helps me
> > find real bugs, and that is more important to me than the 80-column
> > rule.
>
>
On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:44:12 +0100 David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm sorry if that offends you, but making code more readable helps me
> find real bugs, and that is more important to me than the 80-column
> rule.
Code which wraps due to excess line sizes is less readable that code
On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 19:12 -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> Can we come to a consensus for the sake of outside contributors?
> Rather than telling the cozybit folks one thing, and having checkpatch.pl
> and CodingStyle claim another (Dave, surely you wouldn't argue against
> using checkpatch?), can
On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 15:06 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:59:26 +0100
> David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 12:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 13 May 2008 13:20:19 -0400
> > > Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
>
On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 16:15 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 19:12:27 -0400 Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > And FWIW, I like the 80 char limit _except_ when it comes to strings.
>
> I don't normally bother about the strings, unless it is obvious that
> the surroun
On Tue, 13 May 2008 19:12:27 -0400 Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And FWIW, I like the 80 char limit _except_ when it comes to strings.
I don't normally bother about the strings, unless it is obvious that
the surrounding code has worked to prevent them from wrapping (and if I
notice
On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:06:23 -0700
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:59:26 +0100
> David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 12:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 13 May 2008 13:20:19 -0400
> > > Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECT
On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:59:26 +0100
David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 12:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 May 2008 13:20:19 -0400
> > Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:45:39 +0100
> > > David Woodhouse <[EMAIL P
On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 12:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 13:20:19 -0400
> Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:45:39 +0100
> > David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 15:38 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> >
On Tue, 13 May 2008 13:20:19 -0400
Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:45:39 +0100
> David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 15:38 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > >
> > > And even without that, it doesn't seem to do the right thing.
On Tue, 13 May 2008 12:30:53 -0700
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 13:20:19 -0400
> Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:45:39 +0100
> > David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 15:38 +0100, David
John,
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 1:19 PM, John Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The maximum number of multicast addresses per virtual device has been cut in
> > half to ensure that the merged list can be accommodated by the hardware.
>
> If we allocated DRAM this way, no process could use mor
> The maximum number of multicast addresses per virtual device has been cut in
> half to ensure that the merged list can be accommodated by the hardware.
If we allocated DRAM this way, no process could use more than 1/N of
the memory, where N is the number of processes. Surely this is
inappropria
On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:45:39 +0100
David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 15:38 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> >
> > And even without that, it doesn't seem to do the right thing. Set
> > IFF_PROMISC mode on one interface, then on the other, then clear it
> > on the fi
On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 15:38 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> And even without that, it doesn't seem to do the right thing. Set
> IFF_PROMISC mode on one interface, then on the other, then clear it on
> the first it should remain set in hardware. And AFAICT it doesn't.
>
> I'll see if I can m
On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 13:47 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-05-09 at 21:00 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Each device maintains its own list of bound multicast addresses. Those
> > lists
> > are merged and purged from duplicate addresses before being sent to
> > firmware.
> > T
On Fri, 2008-05-09 at 21:00 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Each device maintains its own list of bound multicast addresses. Those lists
> are merged and purged from duplicate addresses before being sent to firmware.
> The maximum number of multicast addresses per virtual device has been cut in
Each device maintains its own list of bound multicast addresses. Those lists
are merged and purged from duplicate addresses before being sent to firmware.
The maximum number of multicast addresses per virtual device has been cut in
half to ensure that the merged list can be accommodated by the har
26 matches
Mail list logo
