From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 26 01:30:58 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A193106564A for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 01:30:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from snabb@epipe.com) Received: from tiktik.epipe.com (tiktik.epipe.com [IPv6:2001:1828:0:3::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCDEA8FC18 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 01:30:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tiktik.epipe.com (tiktik.epipe.com [IPv6:2001:1828:0:3::2]) by tiktik.epipe.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p0Q1Uuik099576 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 26 Jan 2011 01:30:56 GMT (envelope-from snabb@epipe.com) X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.3 tiktik.epipe.com p0Q1Uuik099576 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=epipe.com; s=default; t=1296005457; x=1296610257; bh=r8g69yZnvcqG3K1iqJPdAiC50p1samwwrybFfKmy814=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=LL1d0bqOPxfAQ/ToaoqwCkDGiVILA5P6nab/pu9R857JA90t3ZTx8aF8SU3n8P6C+ vBz5QDuN5RO36XnVjY5GC3M8KcoBpk23z8oOXqb0vXDW7EBEqcKLlfrFXIYEqy0XpV pIT4x/vgumGhA8n1t2H2UBjJZi4RtFMT0PMTrLg4= Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 01:30:56 +0000 (UTC) From: Janne Snabb To: luke@hybrid-logic.co.uk In-Reply-To: <1295969742.3187.48.camel@pow> Message-ID: References: <1295969742.3187.48.camel@pow> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6 (tiktik.epipe.com [IPv6:2001:1828:0:3::2]); Wed, 26 Jan 2011 01:30:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Subject: Re: I have a problem with iSCSI on AMD64 Xen HVM X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 01:30:58 -0000 On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Luke Marsden wrote: > On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 14:35 +0000, Janne Snabb wrote: > > I would guestimate that either "max" should be higher than what it > > currently is (5) or the check which produces the error might be > > unneeded. > > In my tests commenting out that check entirely works fine. It also appears that before SVN r181945 (2008-08-21 by kmacy) "max" was 24, so it was much less likely to hit the (possibly unneeded) "if (frags > max)" check limit: > int max = 24 /* MAX_SKB_FRAGS + (rx->status <= RX_COPY_THRESHOLD) */; I do not understand from the commit message why it was changed to 5. (I wish there was a bit more comments in the non-obvious parts of the code. Now it is difficult for a FreeBSD/Xen PV newbie to work on it without intimate knowledge of the history of the odd bits of the code. It clearly needs more care than what it is being given now. Things like the "do something useful" panic also indicate that there is no more than few people who actually play with and try out the code currently.) -- Janne Snabb / EPIPE Communications snabb@epipe.com - http://epipe.com/