Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 16:48:36 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> To: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: new if_sk locking patch... Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.53.0408181643040.75084@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net> In-Reply-To: <20040818163840.GE99980@funkthat.com> References: <20040817072438.GA99980@funkthat.com> <41223F40.8030702@mcsi.pp.ru> <Pine.BSF.4.53.0408171749000.75084@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net> <Pine.BSF.4.53.0408171925030.75084@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net> <20040818163840.GE99980@funkthat.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > I took a quick look, and did some tests last night, and I couldn't > get the box to hang. I will admit I don't have the fastest hardware, only the interface "hangs" and not the whole box. only seens problem reports for the Yukons for that. > I was running with debug.mpsafenet=1 on a Uniproc box though. I'm going > to commit my locking patch shortly, and could you test again? might be able to test later this evening but cannot promise. are you going to remove the XXX before ? I really do not like the patch as is (w/ or w/o the XXX) but it's better than nothing for now I guess. BTW: hadn't had LORs with dwhite's patch when using modularized version on my amd64 box. Seen LORs when compiled into the kernel. Well at least that's what I think it had been. -- Greetings Bjoern A. Zeeb bzeeb at Zabbadoz dot NeT
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.53.0408181643040.75084>