...meaning, I see the following line in sys/conf/kmod.mk, but that
is a CTFMERGE command.
.if defined(MK_CTF) ${MK_CTF} != no
${CTFMERGE} ${CTFFLAGS} -o ${.TARGET} ${OBJS}
.endif
Where do we run the CTFCONVERT on kernel modules?
--
Shrikanth R K
Hi,
I'd like to hear from somebody who understands this stuff on the relative
merits of blackhole routes vs firewall drop rules for dealing with packets from
unwanted sources. I'm particularly interested in efficiency and scalability.
Thanks
--
Bob Bishop
r...@gid.co.uk
On 2/26/12 5:34 AM, Bob Bishop wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to hear from somebody who understands this stuff on the relative
merits of blackhole routes vs firewall drop rules for dealing with packets from
unwanted sources. I'm particularly interested in efficiency and scalability.
Thanks
the key is
let's try that again with the right Subject: line
On 2/26/12 1:05 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 2/26/12 5:34 AM, Bob Bishop wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to hear from somebody who understands this stuff on the
relative merits of blackhole routes vs firewall drop rules for
dealing with packets from
El día Sunday, February 26, 2012 a las 01:05:11PM -0800, Julian Elischer
escribió:
On 2/26/12 5:34 AM, Bob Bishop wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to hear from somebody who understands this stuff on the relative
merits of blackhole routes vs firewall drop rules for dealing with packets
from
On 2/26/12 1:14 PM, Matthias Apitz wrote:
El día Sunday, February 26, 2012 a las 01:05:11PM -0800, Julian Elischer
escribió:
On 2/26/12 5:34 AM, Bob Bishop wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to hear from somebody who understands this stuff on the relative
merits of blackhole routes vs firewall drop rules
On 26 Feb 2012, at 14:34, Bob Bishop r...@gid.co.uk wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to hear from somebody who understands this stuff on the relative
merits of blackhole routes vs firewall drop rules for dealing with packets
from unwanted sources. I'm particularly interested in efficiency and
On 26 Feb 2012, at 21:14, Matthias Apitz wrote:
El día Sunday, February 26, 2012 a las 01:05:11PM -0800, Julian Elischer
escribió:
On 2/26/12 5:34 AM, Bob Bishop wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to hear from somebody who understands this stuff on the relative
merits of blackhole routes vs
On 02/17/12 12:03, Alexander Motin wrote:
On 17.02.2012 18:53, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Alexander Motinm...@freebsd.org wrote:
[...]So I believe this code works as it should.
Here is the patch: http://people.freebsd.org/~mav/sched.htt40.patch
I plan this to be
On 02/26/12 19:32, George Mitchell wrote:
[...] SCHED_ULE's poor performance for
interactive processes with a full load on interactive processes. It
^^
Should be of compute-bound.
doesn't help. -- George Mitchell
Jeremie,
Thanks for this patch [1]!
I've been building my ports tree with -fstack-protector on FreeBSD 6, 7
and 8. Once I upgraded to 8, I started running into the issue [2] this
patch is fixing.
I have a situation where non-ports applications are compiling
statically, which ran into this.
11 matches
Mail list logo