From owner-freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 16 04:07:49 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 674) id E90BB16A4CF; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 04:07:49 +0000 (GMT) Delivered-To: mlaier@vampire.homelinux.org Received: (qmail 28842 invoked by alias); 22 Jun 2004 19:56:26 -0000 Delivered-To: max@vampire.homelinux.org Received: (qmail 28839 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2004 19:56:26 -0000 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (212.227.126.176) by p548085b6.dip.t-dialin.net with SMTP; 22 Jun 2004 19:56:26 -0000 Received: from [212.227.126.150] (helo=mxng07.kundenserver.de) by moutng.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BcrNa-0000aw-00 for max@vampire.homelinux.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 21:56:26 +0200 Received: from [206.53.239.180] (helo=turing.freelists.org) by mxng07.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BcrNZ-00082G-00 for max@love2party.net; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 21:56:26 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])ESMTP id DABBB72C612; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:34:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02814-57; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:34:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1])ESMTP id B2E8772C53A; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:34:51 -0500 (EST) Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list pf4freebsd); Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:34:31 -0500 (EST) X-Original-To: pf4freebsd@freelists.org Delivered-To: pf4freebsd@freelists.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])ESMTP id 819FE72C6EE for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:34:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02817-44 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:34:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from mr01.hansenet.de (mr01.hansenet.de [213.191.74.10]) ESMTP id 71ADC72C660 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:34:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.nipsi.de (213.39.193.146) by mr01.hansenet.de (5.5.053) id 40D2A2A90000AA28 for pf4freebsd@freelists.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 21:55:54 +0200 Received: from blackbox.home.net (blackbox.home.net [172.16.1.13]) by mail.nipsi.de with esmtp; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 22:00:28 +0200 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by blackbox.home.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5MJtqe1034641 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 21:55:53 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from db@nipsi.de) Message-ID: <40D88EC8.2070809@nipsi.de> From: Dennis Berger User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (X11/20040522) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pf4freebsd@freelists.org References: <40D760E5.7000903@nipsi.de> <200406222003.36024.max@love2party.net> <40D88B97.5090207@nipsi.de> <200406222150.30587.max@love2party.net> In-Reply-To: <200406222150.30587.max@love2party.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at freelists.org X-archive-position: 352 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: pf4freebsd-bounce@freelists.org Errors-To: pf4freebsd-bounce@freelists.org X-original-sender: db@nipsi.de Precedence: normal X-list: pf4freebsd X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at freelists.org X-Provags-Forward: max@love2party.net -> max@vampire.homelinux.org X-UID: 468 X-Length: 4962 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 04:12:49 +0000 Subject: [pf4freebsd] Re: if_fxp.c.patch X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Reply-To: pf4freebsd@freelists.org List-Id: Technical discussion and general questions about packet filter (pf) List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 04:07:50 -0000 X-Original-Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 21:55:52 +0200 X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 04:07:50 -0000 Max Laier wrote: >On Tuesday 22 June 2004 21:42, Dennis Berger wrote: > > >>Max Laier wrote: >> >> >>>On Tuesday 22 June 2004 10:59, Dennis Berger wrote: >>><...> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>Spoken too quick ... I am able to reprocure and have a dump now, thanks >>>>>for the head up ... I'll inform you when I have a conclusion. Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> >>>Okay ... good news - should be fixed now/was not lock related at all. Bad >>>news - it was plain stupidity. I forgot to check whether IFQ_DRV_DEQUEUE >>>was >>> >>> >>so a check around IFQ_DRV_DEQUEUE was needed, why is this check needed >>by the way? >>does IF_DEQUEUE check this normally? >> >> > >No ... IF_DEQUEUE would just "always" succeed. IFQ_DEQUEUE can fail even if >not IFQ_IS_EMPTY (under rate limiting e.g.). Most drivers already do this >check (as w/ kernel threads one could remove a packet from the queue even w/ >the old macros) - so maybe this can be considered a bug in if_fxp.c (which >will be fixed with the altq transformation.) > > > ahh good to know >>>really able to give us an mbuf. >>> >>>Please check out the new diff and test again. Thanks and sorry. >>> >>> >>I'll do that >> >> > >Thanks > > >