On 03/10/10 15:58, David O'Brien wrote:
> I guess I don't get it - we have got reports of this badly affecting
> basic functionallity for several people and yet we wont fix stock
> sources? This is serving users well?
Qing,
I appreciate the care you took in not wanting to add more breakage to
so
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 01:01:06PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 March 2010 11:08:58 am David O'Brien wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:50:46AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 10 March 2010 10:23:39 am David O'Brien wrote:
> > > > This change doesn't seem to work in
On 03/10/2010 10:26 AM, Julian Elischer wrote:
Matthew Jacob wrote:
As well as breaking several RFCs
A stock kernel cannot ping 127.0.0.1. It is claimed there is no
route to
127.0.0.1. David Wolfskill has the same problem, as have others in the
freebsd-current@ mailing list. I don't know
Matthew Jacob wrote:
As well as breaking several RFCs
A stock kernel cannot ping 127.0.0.1. It is claimed there is no route to
127.0.0.1. David Wolfskill has the same problem, as have others in the
freebsd-current@ mailing list. I don't know about others, but not being
able to connect to 12
As well as breaking several RFCs
A stock kernel cannot ping 127.0.0.1. It is claimed there is no route to
127.0.0.1. David Wolfskill has the same problem, as have others in the
freebsd-current@ mailing list. I don't know about others, but not being
able to connect to 127.0.0.1 totally breaks
On Wednesday 10 March 2010 11:08:58 am David O'Brien wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:50:46AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Wednesday 10 March 2010 10:23:39 am David O'Brien wrote:
> > > Hi Qing,
> > >
> > > This change doesn't seem to work in the common case, and has made the
> > > kernel
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 09:46:49AM -0800, Qing Li wrote:
> >
> > I looked at it, and at the diff of his original commit. ?The changes were
> > large enough that I don't want to assume his patch takes care of all the
> > issues given that patch hasn't been committed verbatim.
>
> The change itself
>
> I looked at it, and at the diff of his original commit. The changes were
> large enough that I don't want to assume his patch takes care of all the
> issues given that patch hasn't been committed verbatim.
>
The change itself is not a huge change but if you disagree, then
please be specific.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:50:46AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 March 2010 10:23:39 am David O'Brien wrote:
> > Hi Qing,
> >
> > This change doesn't seem to work in the common case, and has made the
> > kernel toxic - with folks unable to connect to 127.0.0.1. Please back
> > this
On Wednesday 10 March 2010 10:23:39 am David O'Brien wrote:
> Hi Qing,
>
> This change doesn't seem to work in the common case, and has made the
> kernel toxic - with folks unable to connect to 127.0.0.1. Please back
> this out or adjust the change.
Did you try the route.h patch he posted to cur
Hi Qing,
This change doesn't seem to work in the common case, and has made the
kernel toxic - with folks unable to connect to 127.0.0.1. Please back
this out or adjust the change.
thanks,
--
-- David (obr...@freebsd.org)
___
svn-src-all@freebsd.org m
Author: qingli
Date: Tue Mar 9 01:11:45 2010
New Revision: 204902
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/204902
Log:
One of the advantages of enabling ECMP (a.k.a RADIX_MPATH) is to
allow for connection load balancing across interfaces. Currently
the address alias handling method is col
12 matches
Mail list logo
