Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 01:10:40 -0800 (PST) From: Masoud Elahi <elahi1978@yahoo.com> To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: freebsd-hackers-digest V5 #71 Message-ID: <20010321091040.1818.qmail@web4803.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <bulk.32717.20010321005223@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
unsubscribe freebsd-hackers
--- freebsd-hackers-digest
<owner-freebsd-hackers-digest@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote:
>
> freebsd-hackers-digest Wednesday, March 21 2001
> Volume 05 : Number 071
>
>
>
> In this issue:
> driver: probe not called when smbus child
> Re: Routing latency
> RE: Routing latency
> RE: Routing latency
> Re: Easy way to compute memory stats? (procfs?)
> kernel panic
> tuning a VERY heavily (30.0) loaded server
> Re: kernel panic
> Re: tuning a VERY heavily (30.0) loaded server
> Re: tuning a VERY heavily (30.0) loaded server
> Re: tuning a VERY heavily (30.0) loaded server
> Re: tuning a VERY heavily (30.0) loaded server
> Re: tuning a VERY heavily (30.0) loaded server
> Re: tuning a VERY heavily (30.0) loaded server
> Re: tuning a VERY heavily (30.0) loaded server
> Re: tuning a VERY heavily (30.0) loaded scerver
> Re: tuning a VERY heavily (30.0) loaded server
> Re: tuning a VERY heavily (30.0) loaded scerver
> Re: tuning a VERY heavily (30.0) loaded scerver
> Re: tuning a VERY heavily (30.0) loaded server
> Re: tuning a VERY heavily (30.0) loaded scerver
> Re: tuning a VERY heavily (30.0) loaded server
> Re: tuning a VERY heavily (30.0) loaded scerver
> Re: tuning a VERY heavily (30.0) loaded scerver
> Re: tuning a VERY heavily (30.0) loaded scerver
> Re: tuning a VERY heavily (30.0) loaded server
> Re: tuning a VERY heavily (30.0) loaded scerver
> apache truss readings
> Re: tuning a VERY heavily (30.0) loaded scerver
> Re: tuning a VERY heavily (30.0) loaded scerver
> Re: apache truss readings
> Re: any decently supported scanner around ?
> Re: tuning a VERY heavily (30.0) loaded server
> Re: tuning a VERY heavily (30.0) loaded server
> Re: tuning a VERY heavily (30.0) loaded scerver
> Question regarding the array of size 0.
> Re: tuning a VERY heavily (30.0) loaded scerver
> Re: Question regarding the array of size 0.
> Re: tuning a VERY heavily (30.0) loaded server
> Re: Question regarding the array of size 0.
> Re: Question regarding the array of size 0.
> Re: Question regarding the array of size 0.
> Re: Question regarding the array of size 0.
> Re: Question regarding the array of size 0.
> Re: Question regarding the array of size 0.
> Re: Question regarding the array of size 0.
> Re: Question regarding the array of size 0.
> Re: Question regarding the array of size 0.
> Re: device driver dev. book
> Re: tuning a VERY heavily (30.0) loaded server
> Re: GCC Upgrade?
> Re: GCC Upgrade?
> Re: tuning a VERY heavily (30.0) loaded server
> Re: apache truss readings
> Re: Question regarding the array of size 0.
> Re: Question regarding the array of size 0.
> Re: Debuging kernel crashes
> Re: GCC Upgrade?
> Re: kernel panic
> Re: Question regarding the array of size 0.
> Re: driver: probe not called when smbus child
> Re: GCC Upgrade?
> Re: Debuging kernel crashes
> gzip's custom i386 asm should be disabled
> Re: gzip's custom i386 asm should be disabled
> Re: OpenSSH 2.5.1
> Re: driver: probe not called when smbus child
> Re: SCSI-over-* hacks
> Re: Some PCI-related programming things
> Re: driver: probe not called when smbus child
> Re: SCSI-over-* hacks
> Re: driver: probe not called when smbus child
> Re: OpenSSH 2.5.1
> Re: Some PCI-related programming things
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 16:50:09 +0100
> From: Willem van Engen <wvengen@stack.nl>
> Subject: driver: probe not called when smbus child
>
> I'm trying to write a module which should be a child
> of the smbus.
> When I make the driver a child of the isa bus,
> identify, probe,
> and attach functions are properly called. I use the
> following
> code to do that:
> DRIVER_MODULE(my, isa, my_driver, my_devclass, 0,
> 0);
> But when I put it on the smbus using
> DRIVER_MODULE(my, smbus, my_driver, my_devclass,
> 0, 0);
> only identify is called. The identify function is as
> follows:
>
> static void
> my_identify(driver_t *driver, device_t parent)
> {
> devclass_t dc;
> device_t child;
>
> printf("my: my_identify called\n");
> dc = devclass_find("my");
> if (devclass_get_device(dc, 0)==NULL) {
> child = BUS_ADD_CHILD(parent, 0, "my",
> -1);
> }
> }
>
> The driver only uses smbus calls, so I think the
> best parent
> would be smbus.
> And when I do a smbus_request_bus, the call waits
> forever as
> it seems. That seems sensible to me, because it asks
> the
> parent for the bus and the isa bus can't grant
> requests for
> the smbus. So I think the driver has to be a child
> of the smbus.
>
> Looking in the kernel sources, I see that the only
> smbus child
> I can find, smb, (if there are others, I'm certainly
> interested)
> is attached in the smbus code itself. So the next
> question rises:
> Is it possible to have an smbus child in a
> dynamically loadable
> module (I can't find smbus.ko in /modules, so
> loading the child
> first and then smbus isn't an option I guess) ?
>
> - - Willem van Engen
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of
> the message
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 11:46:15 -0500
> From: Dennis <dennis@etinc.com>
> Subject: Re: Routing latency
>
> At 02:43 AM 03/20/2001, you wrote:
> > > > I'm using the de driver. Alas, the NICs seems
> quite old. They are
> > 21140's.
> > > > I've only got one 21143. I think there is a
> 3COM 3c905b in the lab too.
> > > > Would it be better to use the 21143 + 3com
> than two 21140s?
> > >
> > > definitely : in my packet blaster, I get an
> order of magnitude less
> > > packet drops with a 3c905 than with a dc NIC
> (which is on a multi-port
> > > NIC : the PCI-PCI bridge may be a hindrance
> there)
> >
> >not my experience -- with the 21143 i can blast
> 140kpacket/s
> >and receive them with no problems.
> >For sure the "de" driver might have its own
> problems,
> >but i think a lot of packet drops also depend on
> the card
> >not being properly set for full duplex (which can
> >cause collisions and lots of drops).
>
>
> You should initially test mono-directional in a
> controlled environment to
> avoid "collisions" to compare the true efficiency of
> the driver.
>
> dennis
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of
> the message
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 11:50:53 -0500
> From: Dennis <dennis@etinc.com>
> Subject: RE: Routing latency
>
> At 02:04 AM 03/20/2001, M=E5rten Wikstr=F6m wrote:
>
> >[snip]
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010321091040.1818.qmail>