Re: panics in network stack in 12-current

Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: On 26.04.2017 04:03, Tom Uffner wrote: I think the most of these panics should be fixed in r315956. thanks. I'll give it a try and report back as soon as I have a result. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list

Re: panics in network stack in 12-current

On 26.04.2017 04:03, Tom Uffner wrote: > Since updating my -current box to 12 several months ago, I have been > trying to pin down several elusive and probably related panics. > > they always manifest a a trap out of rw_wlock_hard() > > i am fairly certain that r302409 was stable, revs up

panics in network stack in 12-current

Since updating my -current box to 12 several months ago, I have been trying to pin down several elusive and probably related panics. they always manifest a a trap out of rw_wlock_hard() i am fairly certain that r302409 was stable, revs up through r306792 may be stable, or perhaps I just didn't

Re: Add support for ACPI Module Device ACPI0004?

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 4:36 AM, John Baldwin wrote: > On Thursday, April 20, 2017 02:29:30 AM Dexuan Cui wrote: >> > From: John Baldwin [mailto:j...@freebsd.org] >> > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 02:34 >> > > Can we add the support of "ACPI0004" with the below one-line

[Bug 218849] Remove rc.conf jail configuration via jail_* variables

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218849 Brooks Davis changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |Works As

[Bug 218849] Remove rc.conf jail configuration via jail_* variables

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218849 --- Comment #16 from Joe Barbish --- This is my objection to waiting for 12.0 before doing this. When 10.0 came out the removal of the rc.conf method was scheduled to happen at 11.0. Now 3+ years later 11.0 is out

[Bug 218849] Remove rc.conf jail configuration via jail_* variables

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218849 --- Comment #15 from Mathieu Arnold --- (In reply to Joe Barbish from comment #9) > I see no benefit to dropping rc.conf jail support on a major release over a > minor release. I both cases you are going to suffer the

[Bug 218849] Remove rc.conf jail configuration via jail_* variables

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218849 --- Comment #14 from rai...@ultra-secure.de --- I think the PTB (powers that be) ultimately decided that it's not in the interest of the project to have a tool and (and possibly an API) in base to create jails a la ezjail. At least, that's

[Bug 218849] Remove rc.conf jail configuration via jail_* variables

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218849 erdge...@erdgeist.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||erdge...@erdgeist.org ---

Re: Add support for ACPI Module Device ACPI0004?

On Thursday, April 20, 2017 02:29:30 AM Dexuan Cui wrote: > > From: John Baldwin [mailto:j...@freebsd.org] > > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 02:34 > > > Can we add the support of "ACPI0004" with the below one-line change? > > > > > > acpi_sysres_probe(device_t dev) > > > { > > > -static

[Bug 218849] Remove rc.conf jail configuration via jail_* variables

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218849 --- Comment #12 from Ngie Cooper --- For the sake of maintaining POLA, I recommend not breaking it on a dot-release and instead throw the switch on ^/head. I am very much in agreement there with grembo@. I think it would

[Bug 218849] Remove rc.conf jail configuration via jail_* variables

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218849 Conrad Meyer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||c...@freebsd.org

[Bug 218849] Remove rc.conf jail configuration via jail_* variables

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218849 --- Comment #10 from Michael Gmelin --- (In reply to Joe Barbish from comment #9) I tried to give you feedback from real world installations and real world upgrade procedures, as you claimed ezjail isn't relevant any

[Bug 218849] Remove rc.conf jail configuration via jail_* variables

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218849 --- Comment #9 from Joe Barbish --- I see no benefit to dropping rc.conf jail support on a major release over a minor release. I both cases you are going to suffer the same consequences of NOT heeding the warning

[Bug 218849] Remove rc.conf jail configuration via jail_* variables

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218849 --- Comment #8 from Michael Gmelin --- (In reply to Joe Barbish from comment #7) As maintainer of sysutils/qjail you might look at this like it. I just know that we run hundreds of jails using ezjail and breaking that

[Bug 218849] Remove rc.conf jail configuration via jail_* variables

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218849 --- Comment #7 from Joe Barbish --- In reply to comment # 3 which states "But I believe the number of ezjail-jails is significant." This is un-true, since 10.0 was published many ezjail users have been moving to

Re: altq and head

On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Eugene M. Zheganin wrote: > Hi, > > regarding all this stir around ALTQ and igb(4), and mentioning that igb(4) > doesn't have ALTQ in HEAD - I wanted to ask - is this just igb(4) and > ixgbe(4) that lost ALTQ in HEAD, or is ALTQ being removed

[Bug 218849] Remove rc.conf jail configuration via jail_* variables

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218849 Michael Gmelin changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug 218849] Remove rc.conf jail configuration via jail_* variables

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218849 Chris Hutchinson changed: What|Removed |Added CC|