On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 10:02:07AM +0300, Paul Irofti wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Is the issue with LFENCE slowing down the network stack settled? That was
> the argument against it last time.
... a month passes. Nobody says anything.
This "it might slow down the network stack" thing keeps coming
This looks good to me but I've refrained from commenting simply
because I don't use rtables at all myself. Can we get some feedback
from people who actually use rtables?
- todd
Not to provoke a deep philosophical debate about the difference between
Ql, Cm, and Sy, but surely Em isn't the best choice here. A couple other
nits that bothered me in the same general region, I guess your taste
might vary.
Evan Silberman
---
commit
On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 09:02:14PM +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> Sometimes I want to see processes outside the default routing table with
> `-T -0', sometimes those in in a specific one with `-T 3' (for testing).
>
> Since others have poked around with routing tables and/or domains as of
> late,
Yeah, we override both of 'auth->name' and 'auth->secret’.
Since there is the only difference against your previous diff and
the only place where you touch them I have no objections.
> On 22 Aug 2020, at 18:00, Klemens Nanni wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 02:32:17PM +0200, Klemens Nanni
On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 02:32:17PM +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> Another round, this time obvious sizes which are in immediate scope of
> the free() call, e.g. right below the malloc() call.
>
> This leaves only a few selected free() calls with size zero in
> if_spppsubr.c due to the fact that
ok mvs@
> On 22 Aug 2020, at 15:32, Klemens Nanni wrote:
>
> Another round, this time obvious sizes which are in immediate scope of
> the free() call, e.g. right below the malloc() call.
>
> This leaves only a few selected free() calls with size zero in
> if_spppsubr.c due to the fact that
Hi,
At the moment ntpd never goes into unsynced mode if network
connectivity is lost. The code to do that is only triggered when a
pakcet is received, which does not happen.
This diff fixes that by going into unsynced mode if no time data was
processed for a while.
An earlier version of this
On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 14:09:53 +0200 (CEST)
Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 12:57:58 +0200 (CEST)
> > From: Mark Kettenis
> >
> > > Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 19:32:03 +0200 (CEST)
> > > From: Mark Kettenis
> > >
> > > The diff below adds support for higher speeds as supported by
Another round, this time obvious sizes which are in immediate scope of
the free() call, e.g. right below the malloc() call.
This leaves only a few selected free() calls with size zero in
if_spppsubr.c due to the fact that there is currently no variable to
keep track of username and password
> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 12:57:58 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Mark Kettenis
>
> > Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 19:32:03 +0200 (CEST)
> > From: Mark Kettenis
> >
> > The diff below adds support for higher speeds as supported by UHS-I SD
> > cards to the generic sdmmc(4) layer. The diff in itself does not
>
On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 04:10:13PM +0200, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> I still want to move udp/tcp handling out of snmpe, so that there's
> better layering, but my previous diff never got any response and might
> do with some more polishing.
>
> For now, lets remove listen_sock from snmpd,
12 matches
Mail list logo
