Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 20:45:55 +0200 From: Peter <pmc@citylink.dinoex.sub.org> To: Freddie Cash <fjwcash@gmail.com> Cc: "freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org" <freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ipfw: switching sets does stall the machine Message-ID: <20190614184555.GA5959@gate.oper.dinoex.org> In-Reply-To: <CAOjFWZ7nYmP3i77_2UiS1O6ak4M8=B9tyPPMFPxTrpMdE-mhZw@mail.gmail.com> References: <20190614153302.GA4503@gate.oper.dinoex.org> <CAOjFWZ7nYmP3i77_2UiS1O6ak4M8=B9tyPPMFPxTrpMdE-mhZw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 10:21:52AM -0700, Freddie Cash wrote: ! > Details: ! > Machine : i386 ! > OS : FreeBSD 11.2-RELEASE-p10 ! > Command : ipfw set disable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 enable 16 ! > 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ! > ! ! Can't speak to this specific lockup, but I'm curious to know if it works ! when you enable first, then disable (it's how we've used sets here at work). Tried that already, it doesn't make a difference. And since the operation is said to be atomically, it should not make a difference. But now I have an idea what might be the actual issue. One more try for proof, and I send this message out first as otherwise it will be lost...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20190614184555.GA5959>