On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 04:47:31PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> Smaller diff now that rtisvalid(9) is in!
> +rt_isvalid(struct rtentry *rt)
> +/*
> + * Returns 1 if the (cached) ``rt'' entry is still valid, 0 otherwise.
> + */
> +int
> +rtisvalid(struct rtentry *rt)
> +{
> + if
Walter Neto wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Studying more about wapbl, I saw It is a little faster than SU+J and so much
> more easy to implement, correct me if I’m wrong, please.
>
> About a diff with working code, my next would be one with it, but not with
> the whole thing working, It was to be
>From FreeBSD:
> Support domain-search in dhclient(8)
> The "domain-search" option (option 119) allows a DHCP server to publish
> a list of implicit domain suffixes used during name lookup. This option
> is described in RFC 3397.
> For instance, if the domain-search option says:
>
I just noticed on my -current systems, memory reporting from netstat -m
seems to show that memory is overcommited.
$ netstat -m
535 mbufs in use:
289 mbufs allocated to data
8 mbufs allocated to packet headers
238 mbufs allocated to socket names and addresses
Hi guys,
Studying more about wapbl, I saw It is a little faster than SU+J and so much
more easy to implement, correct me if I’m wrong, please.
About a diff with working code, my next would be one with it, but not with the
whole thing working, It was to be homeopathic.
But now I have doubts
If you want to play in this area, WAPBL would be a far more attractive
starting point.
For most purposes, if we got a real journalled filesystem this *could*
largely negate the need for softdep in any case.
You do need to be careful about the stuff from bitrig/netbsd because
there are some
I just committed a diff that adds a little bit more mpsafeness to the
sparc64 pmap. The commit message reads:
Make pmap_kenter_pa(9) and pmap_kremove(9) mpsafe. This required me to
use atomic operations to operate on pm_stats.resident_count. Is it really
necessary to keep track of that
On 2/09/2015, at 4:02 PM, Richard Procter wrote:
>
> Testing: Same code as in my email "[patch] cleaner checksum modification for
> pf",
> see my testing notes there.
>
> Just to be sure/anal retentive, I have retested the more involved changes:
But anal retentivity is no substitute for
