Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:01:21 -0700 (MST) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: jhb@freebsd.org Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r204850 - head/sys/kern Message-ID: <20100308.090121.4959786962434624.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <201003080921.34274.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <201003072237.o27MbZnh088286@svn.freebsd.org> <201003080921.34274.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <201003080921.34274.jhb@freebsd.org>
John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> writes:
: On Sunday 07 March 2010 5:37:35 pm Warner Losh wrote:
: > Author: imp
: > Date: Sun Mar 7 22:37:35 2010
: > New Revision: 204850
: > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/204850
: >
: > Log:
: > Bump up the firmware_table from 30 to 50. bwn needs more than 30, it
: > seems.
:
: Are you sure? The error report I saw was from having firmwares for both
: bwi(4) and bwn(4) loaded. Both of them use a lot of firmware images, but I
: don't think either one in isolation uses more than 30.
You're likely right about that. I know I had been experimenting with
both and I had to bump the limit so I could do some A/B testing with
bwi/bwn on my cards before the import.
: I really think that FIRMWARE_MAX should at the least become a loader tunable
: and have the array malloc'd either on-demand or via a SYSINIT().
Completely agreed. Bumping the limit was easy, and the cost to the
system is relatively low. If anybody wants to make this more dynamic
and/or controllable, go for it.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100308.090121.4959786962434624.imp>