Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 19:46:41 -0600 From: Mark Felder <feld@FreeBSD.org> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Stable Mailing List <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: 10.0-RC1: bad mbuf leak? Message-ID: <EE2A759D-B9BB-4176-BAC6-D6D3C45E2CD1@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-VmonGE2=vmFOnCtLVLyNp0=F%2BNUd6OdU6=rROH_PWkyXSDA@mail.gmail.com> References: <1387204500.12061.60192349.19EAE1B4@webmail.messagingengine.com> <CAJ-VmonGE2=vmFOnCtLVLyNp0=F%2BNUd6OdU6=rROH_PWkyXSDA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Dec 19, 2013, at 2:41, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote: > Hm, try reverting just the em code to that from a 10.0-BETA? Just in > case something changed there? > finally found some free time today to try to look into this. I was digging into the SVN changelogs of sys/dev/e1000 and couldn't see any obvious changes that I should revert. Instead I went a different route and jumped to HEAD/CURRENT. I'm not seeing the mbufs leaking yet. I'll need another 24 hours to confirm. Hopefully this is a worthwhile clue. I'm a bit surprised nobody else has reported this type of behavior... maybe 10 isn't getting the amount of testing we expect? ...or maybe it's just my lonely, haunted hardware :( [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJSt5YBAAoJEJg7ZFAfE+JS4QgIAImK4EQCiDMgvQohGwzqXnEK f6wVu6X3gbS3+FPxMI4btW3GpWLholsRvLhQhbXNXKRU/60UE1P6A5jh3ONTaq24 unt6yJ0GhgjC/aUp+wsJaXIvISPUSUKkBC4tUNXcx1c9Ltwyui8CW6avFIRA6rdk xkCuNczaV2BSp9fmyDpb5FBLvifbbMvvp+CAqZf4QZH1glqjfTOMdYx9IYtRMxiZ 6elxIYGRwz8iHRx/sShqoJCZTWK21fJ5fEjzhPicNKQghfpGHAENFT6GpX/3cVG+ cCLiiDdIAQeuT+jKCS7vXXDSIYfBej6FxBpaa+XF6NpjJoe4iVBqAtUAgHqvUUk= =735b -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?EE2A759D-B9BB-4176-BAC6-D6D3C45E2CD1>