[Differential] D9058: alc: Add Killer E2500 support.

sepherosa_gmail.com created this revision. sepherosa_gmail.com added reviewers: jhb, decui_microsoft.com. sepherosa_gmail.com added a subscriber: freebsd-net-list. REVISION DETAIL https://reviews.freebsd.org/D9058 AFFECTED FILES share/man/man4/alc.4 sys/dev/alc/if_alc.c

[Differential] D8904: inet: Fix routing issue by calling if_up()

sepherosa_gmail.com abandoned this revision. REVISION DETAIL https://reviews.freebsd.org/D8904 EMAIL PREFERENCES https://reviews.freebsd.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ To: sepherosa_gmail.com, delphij, royger, decui_microsoft.com, honzhan_microsoft.com, howard0su_gmail.com, adrian,

[Differential] D8904: inet: Fix routing issue by calling if_up()

glebius added a comment. I don't think that the patch is in the right direction. The problem comes from historical behavior that assigning an address is implicit UP. For a modern networking equipment it is a normal administrative situation that sysadmin wants to assign an address or an

[Differential] D8905: if: Defer the if_up until the ifnet.if_ioctl is called.

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rS311475: if: Defer the if_up until the ifnet.if_ioctl is called. (authored by sephe). CHANGED PRIOR TO COMMIT https://reviews.freebsd.org/D8905?vs=23258=23645#toc REPOSITORY rS FreeBSD src repository

HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

tl;dr --> igbX devices will become emX devices We're about to commit an update to sys/dev/e1000 that will implement and activate IFLIB for em(4), lem(4) & igb(4) and would appreciate all folks who can test and poke at the drivers to do so this week. This will have some really great changes for

[Bug 117733] [patch] [request] allow to tee(1) to sockets, descriptors

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117733 Hiren Panchasara changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|freebsd-b...@freebsd.org

[Bug 194697] incoming IP TOS bits get zeroed on mbufs that need checksumming

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194697 Hiren Panchasara changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug 207200] Page Fault - Fatal Trap 12

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207200 Hiren Panchasara changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|freebsd-b...@freebsd.org

[Bug 155597] [panic] Kernel panics with "sbdrop" message

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=155597 Hiren Panchasara changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |Overcome By

[Bug 145825] [panic] panic: soabort: so_count

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=145825 Hiren Panchasara changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |Overcome By

[Bug 130628] [nfs] NFS / rpc.lockd deadlock on 7.1-R

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=130628 Hiren Panchasara changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug 140597] [netinet] [patch] implement Lost Retransmission Detection

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=140597 Hiren Panchasara changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug 167325] [netinet] [patch] sosend sometimes return EINVAL with TSO and VLAN on 82599 NIC

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167325 Hiren Panchasara changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug 95277] [netinet] [patch] IP Encapsulation mask_match() returns wrong results

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95277 --- Comment #7 from Hiren Panchasara --- Provided feedback is missing from the PR. Can someone add that? Is this still valid? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 173478] [netinet] [patch] icmp forward bandwithlimit

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=173478 Hiren Panchasara changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|an...@freebsd.org

[Bug 215778] coredump when loading additional network driver after boot with routing daemon already running

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215778 m...@sentex.net changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|coredump when loading cxgb |coredump when loading

[Differential] D8905: if: Defer the if_up until the ifnet.if_ioctl is called.

gnn accepted this revision. This revision has a positive review. REVISION DETAIL https://reviews.freebsd.org/D8905 EMAIL PREFERENCES https://reviews.freebsd.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ To: sepherosa_gmail.com, delphij, royger, decui_microsoft.com, honzhan_microsoft.com,

[Bug 211219] NIC status does not pass into a state of "no carrier" after disconnecting the cable.

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211219 --- Comment #11 from Franco Fichtner --- Hi Daniel, If this is ix(4) as per your indication, you need: hw.ix.enable_msix=0 Cheers, Franco -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 211219] NIC status does not pass into a state of "no carrier" after disconnecting the cable.

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211219 --- Comment #10 from Daniel G --- We're trying to triage a simmilar problem, where after a (panic) reboot the NIC remains in "no carrier" state, while the switch thinks the link is online. Our nic's are using lagg with

Re: iSCSI failing, MLX rx_ring errors ?

> On 03 Jan 2017, at 17:21, Julien Cigar wrote: > > is it not the same issue as PR 211990 ? can you try by turning off jumbo > frames ? Hi Julien, With bug 211990 (https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211990), the main issue was that iSCSI disks did not

Gobble Up These Deals! win 196$

___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

[Bug 215682] netstat --libxo invalid data output for tcp6 and udp6 socket ports using json/xml modes

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215682 Hajimu UMEMOTO changed: What|Removed |Added Status|New |In Progress

[Differential] D8904: inet: Fix routing issue by calling if_up()

sepherosa_gmail.com added a comment. In https://reviews.freebsd.org/D8904#185970, @karels wrote: > I think the change is a step in the right direction. Certainly, "ifconfig xxN down" followed by an implicit UP should not cause any change to the routing table. Does anyone know why the