From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Mar 21 1:10:48 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from web4803.mail.yahoo.com (web4803.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.105.245]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A997937B71F for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 01:10:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from elahi1978@yahoo.com) Message-ID: <20010321091040.1818.qmail@web4803.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [213.29.16.6] by web4803.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 01:10:40 PST Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 01:10:40 -0800 (PST) From: Masoud Elahi Reply-To: Admin@iol.co.ir Subject: Re: freebsd-hackers-digest V5 #71 To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG unsubscribe freebsd-hackers --- freebsd-hackers-digest 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 > 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 > 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 > 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