From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 8 16:07:20 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6E06106566C; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 16:07:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (bsdimp.com [199.45.160.85]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93D5F8FC16; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 16:07:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.14.3/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o28G0vGh082341; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 09:00:57 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:01:21 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <20100308.090121.4959786962434624.imp@bsdimp.com> To: jhb@freebsd.org From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <201003080921.34274.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <201003072237.o27MbZnh088286@svn.freebsd.org> <201003080921.34274.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.3 on Emacs 22.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r204850 - head/sys/kern X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:07:20 -0000 In message: <201003080921.34274.jhb@freebsd.org> John Baldwin 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