From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 19 14:59:38 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@www.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@www.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91AAC16A41F for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 14:59:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org) Received: from mail24.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail24.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.26]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A45343D4C for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 14:59:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org) Received: (qmail 19975 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2005 14:59:37 -0000 Received: from dsl092-078-145.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO be-well.ilk.org) ([66.92.78.145]) (envelope-sender ) by mail24.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 19 Nov 2005 14:59:37 -0000 Received: by be-well.ilk.org (Postfix, from userid 1147) id 11AF028441; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 09:59:37 -0500 (EST) Sender: lowell@be-well.ilk.org To: Goran Gajic References: From: Lowell Gilbert Date: 19 Nov 2005 09:59:37 -0500 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4464qowuna.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> Lines: 15 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: freebsd-questions@www.freebsd.org Subject: Re: sio0: more interrupt-level buffer overflows X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 14:59:38 -0000 Goran Gajic writes: > I've been using 6.0-RELEASE for some time now. I have one question > considering messages I see after hanging up my modem > connection. Whenever I disconnect from network (killall -9 pppd) I > see this message: > > kernel: sio0: 264 more interrupt-level buffer overflows (total 5370) > > I have tried both with nocrtscts and crtscts in /etc/ppp/options > but with no luck. What is causing this behavior? Is there some reason you're using -9 instead of one of the signals recommended by the pppd(8) documentation? I would expect SIGTERM, for example, to close a lot more cleanly than SIGKILL...