Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 12:47:48 +0200 (CEST) From: "Gelsema, P \(Patrick\)" <gelsemap@superhero.nl> To: pyunyh@gmail.com Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: nfe(4) vs. nve(4) Message-ID: <5618.195.50.100.20.1181213268.squirrel@www.superhero.nl> In-Reply-To: <20070602084210.GC1140@cdnetworks.co.kr> References: <20070602084210.GC1140@cdnetworks.co.kr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, June 2, 2007 10:42, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > If you are brave enough to test Rx lock-free nfe(4), try: > http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/nfe/WIP/if_nfe.c > http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/nfe/WIP/if_nfereg.h > http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/nfe/WIP/if_nfevar.h I am running this version for some time now without any issues. Works good, I would say go ahead with the commit. One note, however I don't think it is related to the nfe(4), is that traceroute shows weird results. I am getting 3 hops on the same rule. I am currently not able to copy results but will send this later on this evening in a new thread. Rgds, Patrick > > Thanks. > -- > Regards, > Pyun YongHyeon > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5618.195.50.100.20.1181213268.squirrel>