Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 11:18:45 -0700 From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> To: Eygene Ryabinkin <rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru> Cc: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pf 4.1 Update available for testing Message-ID: <468A9305.3050804@root.org> In-Reply-To: <20070703164655.GA1707@void.codelabs.ru> References: <200706160347.33331.max@love2party.net> <20070617094126.GT3779@void.codelabs.ru> <200706171717.21585.max@love2party.net> <20070619074150.GC26920@void.codelabs.ru> <4677FF00.4060506@root.org> <20070620152609.GD26920@void.codelabs.ru> <20070620190423.GH26920@void.codelabs.ru> <20070703164655.GA1707@void.codelabs.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Eygene Ryabinkin wrote: > Nate, Max, good day. > > Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 11:04:23PM +0400, Eygene Ryabinkin wrote: >> This error can potentially be responsible to the weird bandwidth >> values I am having with the altq on my notebook. The issue is >> described on the thread >> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2007-April/070730.html >> Basically, I am setting one BW limit in pf.conf and seeing another >> one (much lower) via the ifstat utility. >> >> I was able only to test the compilation of the new patched kernel. >> No bandwidth tests were done: I have no access to the fast LAN link >> up to the Monday, 24th, sorry. May be I will be able to setup >> ng_eiface and test with it, but I am not fluent with the netgraph. >> Will post an update if tests will be carried. > > At last, carried the tests. No luck: still seeing weird > bandwidth numbers as compared with the setting in the pf.conf. > > But still, the second issue about non-initialized variables > can be committed: it will not harm. What do you both think? > > Thank you. I'm reviewing your patch; started yesterday. I think it can be done simpler. I'll get back to you today. -- Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?468A9305.3050804>