Terry Lambert writes:
To do the work, you'd have to do it on your own, after licensing
the firmware, after signing an NDA. Unlike the rather public
Tigon II firmware, the Tigon III doesn't have a lot of synergy
or interesting work going for it. Most people doing interesting
work
Kenneth D. Merry writes:
As a related question, will this work with the broadcom gigabit (bge)
driver, which is the Tigon III? If not, what would it take to get
it working?
Unfortunately, it won't work with the Tigon III.
If you can get firmware source for the Tigon III, I can
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 23:02:55 -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
* Kenneth D. Merry [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020517 22:40] wrote:
I have released a new set of zero copy sockets patches, against -current
from today (May 17th, 2002).
The main change is to deal with the vfs_ioopt changes that
* Kenneth D. Merry [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020517 23:31] wrote:
The problem here is that the mutex needs to be initialized before I can
acquire it, and there's going to be a race between checking to see
whether it has been initialized and actually initializing it.
...
Suggestions?
*slaps
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
* Kenneth D. Merry [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020517 23:31] wrote:
The problem here is that the mutex needs to be initialized before I can
acquire it, and there's going to be a race between checking to see
whether it has been initialized and actually initializing it.
...
On 18-May-2002 Kenneth D. Merry wrote:
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 23:02:55 -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
* Kenneth D. Merry [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020517 22:40] wrote:
I have released a new set of zero copy sockets patches, against -current
from today (May 17th, 2002).
The main change is
On 18-May-2002 Terry Lambert wrote:
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
* Kenneth D. Merry [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020517 23:31] wrote:
The problem here is that the mutex needs to be initialized before I can
acquire it, and there's going to be a race between checking to see
whether it has been
:Alfred Perlstein wrote:
: * Kenneth D. Merry [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020517 23:31] wrote:
: The problem here is that the mutex needs to be initialized before I can
: acquire it, and there's going to be a race between checking to see
: whether it has been initialized and actually initializing it.
:
Kenneth D. Merry writes:
I have released a new set of zero copy sockets patches, against -current
from today (May 17th, 2002).
The main change is to deal with the vfs_ioopt changes that Alan Cox made in
kern_subr.c. (They conflicted a bit with the zero copy receive code.)
The
Andrew Gallatin writes:
Kenneth D. Merry writes:
I have released a new set of zero copy sockets patches, against
-current
from today (May 17th, 2002).
Hi Ken,
I'm glad to see that you're still maintining this!
Assuming the mutex issues get sorted out, what do you think the
John Baldwin wrote:
God, it's annoying that a statically declared mutex is not
defacto initialized.
Is it in solaris?
It isn't in FreeBSD because of the need to link mutex'es into
the witness protection program. 8-).
Yeah, I understand the witness crap (if it's there); that
doesn't
On 18-May-2002 Terry Lambert wrote:
John Baldwin wrote:
God, it's annoying that a statically declared mutex is not
defacto initialized.
Is it in solaris?
It isn't in FreeBSD because of the need to link mutex'es into
the witness protection program. 8-).
Actually, there is more to it
Don Bowman wrote:
Andrew Gallatin writes:
Kenneth D. Merry writes:
I have released a new set of zero copy sockets patches, against
-current
from today (May 17th, 2002).
Hi Ken,
I'm glad to see that you're still maintining this!
Assuming the mutex issues get sorted
John Baldwin wrote:
On 18-May-2002 Terry Lambert wrote:
John Baldwin wrote:
God, it's annoying that a statically declared mutex is not
defacto initialized.
Is it in solaris?
It isn't in FreeBSD because of the need to link mutex'es into
the witness protection program. 8-).
On 18-May-2002 Terry Lambert wrote:
John Baldwin wrote:
On 18-May-2002 Terry Lambert wrote:
John Baldwin wrote:
God, it's annoying that a statically declared mutex is not
defacto initialized.
Is it in solaris?
It isn't in FreeBSD because of the need to link mutex'es into
the
John Baldwin wrote:
This is actually what I was saying was bad: a static function
per mutex declaration.
Umm, no, there is _one_ global function that we call. Why not check
the actual code?
Are you talking about a P4 branch, and not the main repository?
Why don't you read the code?
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 09:03:38 -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
On 18-May-2002 Kenneth D. Merry wrote:
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 23:02:55 -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
* Kenneth D. Merry [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020517 22:40] wrote:
I have released a new set of zero copy sockets patches,
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 13:12:09 -0400, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
Kenneth D. Merry writes:
I have released a new set of zero copy sockets patches, against -current
from today (May 17th, 2002).
The main change is to deal with the vfs_ioopt changes that Alan Cox made in
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 13:15:43 -0400, Don Bowman wrote:
Andrew Gallatin writes:
Kenneth D. Merry writes:
I have released a new set of zero copy sockets patches, against
-current
from today (May 17th, 2002).
Hi Ken,
I'm glad to see that you're still maintining this!
I have released a new set of zero copy sockets patches, against -current
from today (May 17th, 2002).
The main change is to deal with the vfs_ioopt changes that Alan Cox made in
kern_subr.c. (They conflicted a bit with the zero copy receive code.)
The patches and the FAQ are available here:
* Kenneth D. Merry [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020517 22:40] wrote:
I have released a new set of zero copy sockets patches, against -current
from today (May 17th, 2002).
The main change is to deal with the vfs_ioopt changes that Alan Cox made in
kern_subr.c. (They conflicted a bit with the zero
21 matches
Mail list logo
