On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 09:10:44PM +0100, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, Rafael Zalamena wrote:
>
> > > Maybe something like this is enough already (untested):
> >
> > I tried your diff without Mike's if_vio diff and it doesn't panic anymore,
> > however it doesn't work.
> >
> >
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 21:10 +0100, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, Rafael Zalamena wrote:
>
> > > Maybe something like this is enough already (untested):
> >
> > I tried your diff without Mike's if_vio diff and it doesn't panic anymore,
> > however it doesn't work.
> >
> > vioX
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 09:10:44PM +0100, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, Rafael Zalamena wrote:
>
> > > Maybe something like this is enough already (untested):
> >
> > I tried your diff without Mike's if_vio diff and it doesn't panic anymore,
> > however it doesn't work.
> >
> >
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 09:10:44PM +0100, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, Rafael Zalamena wrote:
>
> > > Maybe something like this is enough already (untested):
> >
> > I tried your diff without Mike's if_vio diff and it doesn't panic anymore,
> > however it doesn't work.
> >
> >
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, Rafael Zalamena wrote:
> > Maybe something like this is enough already (untested):
>
> I tried your diff without Mike's if_vio diff and it doesn't panic anymore,
> however it doesn't work.
>
> vioX can send packets to host, host receives them and reply, but vioX
> doesn't
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 09:03:46AM +0100, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > > I guess we could do that. But then we cannot free the mbufs on DOWN
> > > until the device has used them.
> >
> > Diff to this effect is below. Works on vmd and qemu (original
> >
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > I am not convinced. Doing a reset allows to recover from all kinds of
> > problems with DOWN/UP. That was useful when we had bugs in the event_idx
> > implementation.
> >
>
> I don't think this justifies it since bugs need to be fixed regardless.
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 09:03 +0100, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > > I guess we could do that. But then we cannot free the mbufs on DOWN
> > > until the device has used them.
> >
> > Diff to this effect is below. Works on vmd and qemu (original
> > one
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > I guess we could do that. But then we cannot free the mbufs on DOWN
> > until the device has used them.
>
> Diff to this effect is below. Works on vmd and qemu (original
> one didn't because I kept the virtio_reset).
>
> > That sounds like an
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 00:42 +0100, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 November 2016 00:34:42 CET Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > Yes, after looking closer at virtio code I agree with you.
> > However, stop/init is purely OpenBSD specific action. There
> > are no provisions or requirements from
On Wednesday, 23 November 2016 00:34:42 CET Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> Yes, after looking closer at virtio code I agree with you.
> However, stop/init is purely OpenBSD specific action. There
> are no provisions or requirements from the hardware really.
> Thus we can treat UP/DOWN as purely software
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 00:09 +0100, s...@openbsd.org wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2016, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
>
> > vmd hackers and users seem to be able to trigger the assertion
> > below every time they do down and then up (with a dhclient for
> > instance):
> >
> > panic: kernel diagnostic
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:09:57AM +0100, s...@openbsd.org wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2016, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
>
> > vmd hackers and users seem to be able to trigger the assertion
> > below every time they do down and then up (with a dhclient for
> > instance):
> >
> > panic: kernel diagnostic
On Tue, 22 Nov 2016, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> vmd hackers and users seem to be able to trigger the assertion
> below every time they do down and then up (with a dhclient for
> instance):
>
> panic: kernel diagnostic assertion "m != NULL" failed: file
> "/usr/src/sys/dev/pci/if_vio.c", line
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 09:45:30PM +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> vmd hackers and users seem to be able to trigger the assertion
> below every time they do down and then up (with a dhclient for
> instance):
>
> panic: kernel diagnostic assertion "m != NULL" failed: file
>
15 matches
Mail list logo