[head tinderbox] failure on powerpc64/powerpc

TB --- 2014-07-15 21:33:25 - tinderbox 2.22 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2014-07-15 21:33:25 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 9.2-STABLE FreeBSD 9.2-STABLE #0 r263721: Tue Mar 25 09:27:39 EDT 2014 d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64 TB --- 2014

[head tinderbox] failure on powerpc/powerpc

TB --- 2014-07-15 20:02:10 - tinderbox 2.22 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2014-07-15 20:02:10 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 9.2-STABLE FreeBSD 9.2-STABLE #0 r263721: Tue Mar 25 09:27:39 EDT 2014 d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64 TB --- 2014

[head tinderbox] failure on sparc64/sparc64

TB --- 2014-07-15 21:39:21 - tinderbox 2.22 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2014-07-15 21:39:21 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 9.2-STABLE FreeBSD 9.2-STABLE #0 r263721: Tue Mar 25 09:27:39 EDT 2014 d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64 TB --- 2014

Re: Boot loader too large

On Friday, July 11, 2014 6:50:43 pm Matthew D. Fuller wrote: > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 03:38:56PM -0700 I heard the voice of > Nathan Whitehorn, and lo! it spake thus: > > > > I don't honestly remember where that number came from. It's at line > > 72 of usr.sbin/bsdinstall/partedit/partedit_x86.c.

Re: bsd.sys.mk [-Wno-uninitialized]

[-stable to bcc; keeping -current] On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: On 07/05/14 15:10, David Chisnall wrote: On 5 Jul 2014, at 14:07, Dimitry Andric wrote: Interestingly, -Wno-uninitialized has been in bsd.sys.mk since r76861, and the accompanying comment ("XXX Delete -Wunini

panic: page fault (on 10.0-RELEASE-p7)

Info at . On the 1st boot after the panic, the crash dump failed due to insufficient amount of space on /. Then I removed some files, restarted the system, and the dump was redone. Is it correct to assume that the dump was not damaged? __

Re: Demangling issues with libcxxrt.so.1 on v9.2

Hi Ivan, The demangler in libcxxrt is taken from the elftoolchain project. Kai Wang (added to cc:) was interested in improving it, but I doubt any fixes will be merged to 9.x any time soon. David On 15 Jul 2014, at 14:11, Ivan A. Kosarev wrote: > Hello everybody, > > It seems there are pro

Demangling issues with libcxxrt.so.1 on v9.2

Hello everybody, It seems there are problems with demandling some kinds of names with libcxxrt.so.1 on FreeBSD 9.2 (I didn't test other versions yet). This program: --- #include #include extern "C" char* __cxa_demangle(const char* mangled_name, char* buf, size_t* n, int

Re: Fix Emulex "oce" driver in CURRENT

On Jul 15, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > So, asking for spiritual counsel now. Would you use this driver in a > production environment instead of the 747 version downloaded from Emulex? I > think the latter is giving slightly better performance but, anyway, I disable > LRO and

Re: Fix Emulex "oce" driver in CURRENT

2014-07-15 12:00 GMT+02:00 Borja Marcos : > > On Jul 15, 2014, at 11:45 AM, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > > I just tried to run iperf3 with this patch and STABLE-10 and it seems to > > work. > > Do you have a panic? > > So far, so good. I've ran a couple of iperf3 tests (60 seconds, trying > both

Re: Fix Emulex "oce" driver in CURRENT

On Jul 15, 2014, at 11:45 AM, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > I just tried to run iperf3 with this patch and STABLE-10 and it seems to > work. > Do you have a panic? So far, so good. I've ran a couple of iperf3 tests (60 seconds, trying both directions) and it doesn't crash. Without the fixes I ob

Re: Fix Emulex "oce" driver in CURRENT

2014-07-15 11:46 GMT+02:00 Borja Marcos : > > On Jul 15, 2014, at 11:45 AM, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > > I just tried to run iperf3 with this patch and STABLE-10 and it seems to > work. > > Do you have a panic? > > Still compiling :) Anyway, you didn't suffer panics before, right? Right, I di

Re: Fix Emulex "oce" driver in CURRENT

On Jul 15, 2014, at 11:45 AM, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > I just tried to run iperf3 with this patch and STABLE-10 and it seems to work. > Do you have a panic? Still compiling :) Anyway, you didn't suffer panics before, right? Borja. ___ freebsd-c

Re: Fix Emulex "oce" driver in CURRENT

I just tried to run iperf3 with this patch and STABLE-10 and it seems to work. Do you have a panic? Cheers, Stefano 2014-07-15 11:19 GMT+02:00 Stefano Garzarella : > I think there is some problem with the email formatting. > I send you a file with both patches. > > Cheers, > Stefano > > > 2014-

Re: [RFC] Add support for changing the flow ID of TCP connections

On 07/09/14 18:31, Navdeep Parhar wrote: On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 04:36:53PM +0200, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: On 07/08/14 21:17, Navdeep Parhar wrote: ... I think we need to design this to be as generic as possible. I have quite a bit of code that does this stuff but I haven't pushed it upst

bsd.sys.mk [-Wno-uninitialized]

On 07/05/14 15:10, David Chisnall wrote: On 5 Jul 2014, at 14:07, Dimitry Andric wrote: Interestingly, -Wno-uninitialized has been in bsd.sys.mk since r76861, and the accompanying comment ("XXX Delete -Wuninitialized by default for now -- the compiler doesn't always get it right") has never be

Re: Fix Emulex "oce" driver in CURRENT

I think there is some problem with the email formatting. I send you a file with both patches. Cheers, Stefano 2014-07-15 11:12 GMT+02:00 Borja Marcos : > > On Jul 15, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > > I used the "oce" driver in CURRENT. > > I think that this patch in combinatio

Re: Fix Emulex "oce" driver in CURRENT

On Jul 15, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > I used the "oce" driver in CURRENT. > I think that this patch in combination with the previous one should work in > 10-STABLE. > > I have only tested if it works with CURRENT, but now I try if it works with > 10-STABLE and I'll send you s

Re: Fix Emulex "oce" driver in CURRENT

On Jul 15, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > I used the "oce" driver in CURRENT. > I think that this patch in combination with the previous one should work in > 10-STABLE. > > I have only tested if it works with CURRENT, but now I try if it works with > 10-STABLE and I'll send yo

Re: Fix Emulex "oce" driver in CURRENT

I used the "oce" driver in CURRENT. I think that this patch in combination with the previous one should work in 10-STABLE. I have only tested if it works with CURRENT, but now I try if it works with 10-STABLE and I'll send you some feedback. Cheers, Stefano 2014-07-15 10:28 GMT+02:00 Borja Marc

Re: Fix Emulex "oce" driver in CURRENT

On Jul 15, 2014, at 10:22 AM, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > Hi, > I found other problems in the "oce" driver during some experiments with > netmap in emulation mode. What about driver version 10.0.747.0? At least in my configuration it works perfectly, no crashes despite keeping it running for s

Re: libdevattr

On 7/15/14, Bruno Lauzé wrote: > I was looking at dragonfly and why they have libdevattr and we don'tI really > think having udev compatible api would open the door to a lot of software, > imho.I feel it wouldn't be so complicated to port dragonfly kern_udev, > libprop and libdevattr from dragonfl

Re: Fix Emulex "oce" driver in CURRENT

Hi, I found other problems in the "oce" driver during some experiments with netmap in emulation mode. In details: - missing locking: - in some functions there are write accesses on the wq struct (tx queue descriptor) without acquire LOCK on the queue, particularly in oce_wq_handler() that is invok