From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 9 17:19:09 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B63AF16A4CE; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 17:19:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ebb.errno.com (ebb.errno.com [66.127.85.87]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84C9643D41; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 17:19:09 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Received: from [66.127.85.91] (sam@[66.127.85.91]) (authenticated bits=0) by ebb.errno.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j29HJ7ms059620 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 9 Mar 2005 09:19:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Message-ID: <422F306E.5040200@errno.com> Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:20:46 -0800 From: Sam Leffler User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0RC1 (X11/20041208) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Silbersack References: <200503082325.j28NPkY5032559@repoman.freebsd.org> <20050308194137.J811@odysseus.silby.com> <422E84E6.1030508@samsco.org> <20050309003804.J721@odysseus.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <20050309003804.J721@odysseus.silby.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: Scott Long cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/pci if_dc.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 17:19:09 -0000 Mike Silbersack wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Scott Long wrote: > >> Yes, the hw.busdma tree has quite a bit of stats regarding bounce page >> use. >> >> Scott > > > Ah, I see that now. As a followup, is there a way to force bouncing, as > a means of stressing situations like this one? I checked the busdma > manpage quickly, but I didn't consult the source. :) > > Maybe we should put all testing code under a STRESS_TEST define, kinda > like I have MBUF_STRESS_TEST hiding the mbuf fragmenting code at the > moment. I find the STRESS_TEST ifdef pollution complicates the code unnecessarily. The existing code feels like it belongs in a private branch and not in public CVS. Sam