From owner-freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 20 13:28:25 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 933EC16A417 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:28:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from varga@stonehenge.sk) Received: from otana.stonehenge.sk (otana.stonehenge.sk [82.208.39.177]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CD46B13C458 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:28:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from varga@stonehenge.sk) Received: (qmail 92858 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2007 13:01:31 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on otana.stonehenge.sk X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.5 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_PBL shortcircuit=no autolearn=disabled version=3.2.3 Received: from r6cb57.net.upc.cz (HELO ?10.0.100.2?) (secure@89.176.79.57) by otana.stonehenge.sk with SMTP; 20 Aug 2007 13:01:31 -0000 From: Michal Varga To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Stonehenge Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:01:30 +0200 Message-Id: <1187614890.35857.15.camel@xenon.stonehenge.sk> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.3 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: CBQ borrow still broken? X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Technical discussion and general questions about packet filter \(pf\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:28:25 -0000 Guys, can anyone tell me what is the current status of this problem? - http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-pf/2007-February/003018.html I've run into the same issues under FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE: Mon Aug 20 08:44:45 CEST 2007. Later in the thread, Max Laier wrote: "Is there a PR about the CBQ borrow issues? If not, could you file one? I won't get to it shortly." I did search the PR database and didn't find anything relevant, so, was this issue completely forgotten, or did I miss something? Or, at least, if this is somewhat unimportant bug and not to be fixed, does anyone know if the latest pf in -CURRENT behaves ok with cbq borrowing? regards, m. -- Michal Varga Stonehenge