Re: RC1 builds

2021-03-08 Thread Graham Perrin
On 08/03/2021 10:33, Mitidzi Racerex wrote: Please give a link to RC1 builds. See the e-mail that was posted on the 6th, 'FreeBSD 13.0-RC1 Now Available' Thanks ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list

Re: Waiting for bufdaemon

2021-03-08 Thread Yasuhiro Kimura
From: Kyle Evans Subject: Re: Waiting for bufdaemon Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 11:07:23 -0600 > I've tried tracking down exactly what the problem is that causes the > symptoms we're seeing, but no luck so far. I'm eyeballing the > following patch which partially reverts kib's 84eaf2ccc6aa05 ("x86: >

RC1 builds

2021-03-08 Thread Mitidzi Racerex
Please give a link to RC1 builds. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: FreeBSD 13.0-RC1 ethertype IPv6 (0x86dd), length 2942 on 1500 MTU

2021-03-08 Thread Lars Schotte
Oh, I am afraid I have to correct myself once again. I was expecting the change to take effect immediately, however, after closing all connections to the system, it indeed seems to have helped to remove TSO6. Thanks for the quick fix. However, I will keep an eye on it, I will do more testing

Re: FreeBSD 13.0-RC1 ethertype IPv6 (0x86dd), length 2942 on 1500 MTU

2021-03-08 Thread Lars Schotte
Hi, thanks for you fast reaction. I was sceptical about this, since it contrary to my expectations indeed does affect IPv4 as well, but I tried it anyway and the result is NEGATIVE. Removing TSO6 does not help with it, it still spills out crazy sized Ethernet frames of ~4000 and so on. On Mon,

Re: FreeBSD 13.0-RC1 ethertype IPv6 (0x86dd), length 2942 on 1500 MTU

2021-03-08 Thread Ryan Stone
Hi Lars, Do you see the TSO6 option enabled on your vtnet interface? Do you see normal packet sizes if you disable it with "ifconfig vtnet0 -tso6"? Does it actually fix your IPv6 issue? ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list

Re: FreeBSD 13.0-RC1 ethertype IPv6 (0x86dd), length 2942 on 1500 MTU

2021-03-08 Thread Lars Schotte
It looks like vtnet driver ignored MTU setting on 13.0-RC1. I see this on both, IPv4 and IPv6 ... however IPv4 works maybe because DigitalOcean and Vultr do split those frames on KVM virt host, but don't do this for IPv6 (I suppose). Everything about this is strange but so far I have been able

Re: Rationalizing sed -i/-I (in-place editing) argument handling

2021-03-08 Thread Ed Maste
On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 at 17:00, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > How is the program suppose to tell when the extension is "-e", or -e > is a different option and not the argument to -I? -i-e is an in-place edit with extension "-e" -i -e is an in-place edit with no extension

Re: Rationalizing sed -i/-I (in-place editing) argument handling

2021-03-08 Thread John-Mark Gurney
Ed Maste wrote this message on Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 15:13 -0500: > A relatively minor but longstanding incompatibility between FreeBSD > and many other systems is the way sed handles backup files for > in-place editing -- sed's -I and -i options. GNU sed and other BSDs > accept an optional

Re: Rationalizing sed -i/-I (in-place editing) argument handling

2021-03-08 Thread Ed Maste
On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 at 15:55, Ian Lepore wrote: > > I also hate the idea of requiring no space between -I and its related > value. That seems like a huge POLA violation compared to how virtually > every other command's options and arguments work. On the other hand, -i.ext with no space is

Re: Rationalizing sed -i/-I (in-place editing) argument handling

2021-03-08 Thread Steffen Nurpmeso
Ian Lepore wrote in <8e9983a4243d158789029ec8b16837b35ca4451a.ca...@freebsd.org>: |On Mon, 2021-03-08 at 15:13 -0500, Ed Maste wrote: |> A relatively minor but longstanding incompatibility between FreeBSD |> and many other systems is the way sed handles backup files for |> in-place editing --

Re: Rationalizing sed -i/-I (in-place editing) argument handling

2021-03-08 Thread Ian Lepore
On Mon, 2021-03-08 at 15:13 -0500, Ed Maste wrote: > A relatively minor but longstanding incompatibility between FreeBSD > and many other systems is the way sed handles backup files for > in-place editing -- sed's -I and -i options. GNU sed and other BSDs > accept an optional argument: -I.bak will

Re: Rationalizing sed -i/-I (in-place editing) argument handling

2021-03-08 Thread Chris
On 2021-03-08 12:13, Ed Maste wrote: A relatively minor but longstanding incompatibility between FreeBSD and many other systems is the way sed handles backup files for in-place editing -- sed's -I and -i options. GNU sed and other BSDs accept an optional argument: -I.bak will save a backup file

Rationalizing sed -i/-I (in-place editing) argument handling

2021-03-08 Thread Ed Maste
A relatively minor but longstanding incompatibility between FreeBSD and many other systems is the way sed handles backup files for in-place editing -- sed's -I and -i options. GNU sed and other BSDs accept an optional argument: -I.bak will save a backup file with a .bak extension, and -I with no

Re: Waiting for bufdaemon

2021-03-08 Thread Ed Maste
On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 at 12:07, Kyle Evans wrote: > > diff --git a/sys/x86/x86/tsc.c b/sys/x86/x86/tsc.c > index 68fc57e6ea7..6f25360a67c 100644 > --- a/sys/x86/x86/tsc.c > +++ b/sys/x86/x86/tsc.c > @@ -501,7 +501,12 @@ test_tsc(int adj_max_count) > uint64_t *data, *tsc; > u_int i,

FreeBSD 13.0-RC1 ethertype IPv6 (0x86dd), length 2942 on 1500 MTU

2021-03-08 Thread Lars Schotte
Hey friends, I am running this FreeBSD 13.0-RC1 and I am experiencing strange Ethernet frame sizes, TCP sizes well above 2500 on an MTU of 1500. Somehow it seems that this problem only applies on IPv6, IPv4 works fine. I have seen some strange network behaviour with TCP connections randomly

Re: Waiting for bufdaemon

2021-03-08 Thread Kyle Evans
On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 10:51 AM Yasuhiro Kimura wrote: > > From: Yasuhiro Kimura > Subject: Re: Waiting for bufdaemon > Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2021 00:57:32 +0900 (JST) > > > But still one question remains. Why have the value of > > kern.timecounter.hardware and kern.timecounter.tc.ACPI-fast.counter

Re: Waiting for bufdaemon

2021-03-08 Thread Yasuhiro Kimura
From: Yasuhiro Kimura Subject: Re: Waiting for bufdaemon Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2021 00:57:32 +0900 (JST) > But still one question remains. Why have the value of > kern.timecounter.hardware and kern.timecounter.tc.ACPI-fast.counter > changed by applying the patch? My understanding is that it only

Re: Waiting for bufdaemon

2021-03-08 Thread Yasuhiro Kimura
From: Konstantin Belousov Subject: Re: Waiting for bufdaemon Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 02:03:13 +0200 > On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 02:25:45PM -0600, Kyle Evans wrote: >> I'm going to be pedantic here, but note that this isn't a tunable. You >> cannot, AFAIK, influence the timecounter chosen with kenv;

netgraph issues FBSD13.0-ALLSERIES

2021-03-08 Thread Zenny
Hi, netgraph fails on concurrent node rename as I raised in https://github.com/genneko/freebsd-vimage-jails/issues/2. In summary, it gives an error that reads: "ng_ether_ifnet_arrival_event: can't re-name node vi0_v1" for each interface. Which is similar to bug reported in