On 10/06/13(Mon) 02:05, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 06:34:27PM +0200, Christopher Zimmermann wrote:
inet 172.26.153.50 0xff00 NONE mtu 1398
in6_unlink_ifa: interface address 0x80624a00 has no prefix
in6_unlink_ifa: interface address 0x80624a00 has
On 2013/06/12 12:51, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
On 10/06/13(Mon) 02:05, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 06:34:27PM +0200, Christopher Zimmermann wrote:
inet 172.26.153.50 0xff00 NONE mtu 1398
in6_unlink_ifa: interface address 0x80624a00 has no prefix
On 12/06/13(Wed) 12:19, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2013/06/12 12:51, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
On 10/06/13(Mon) 02:05, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 06:34:27PM +0200, Christopher Zimmermann wrote:
inet 172.26.153.50 0xff00 NONE mtu 1398
in6_unlink_ifa:
want to subscribe tech@openbsd.org
Михаил Швецов.
NetBSD and Broadcom docs (5718-PG106-R.pdf and 57XX-PG105-R.pdf)
and even our bnx(4) driver (and it's spec) agree that the mask
should be 0x3ff.
OK?
diff --git sys/dev/pci/if_bgereg.h sys/dev/pci/if_bgereg.h
index 3685f14..c0a28b9 100644
--- sys/dev/pci/if_bgereg.h
+++ sys/dev/pci/if_bgereg.h
@@
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:19:30PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
3. the reason for in6_unlink_ifa being called at all is because
in6_ifattach_loopback automatically tries to add in6addr_loopback to a
newly created lo interface, which is the wrong thing to do in the case
of multiple lo(4)