From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 14 17:03:03 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC1DD16A421 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:03:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kamikaze@bsdforen.de) Received: from mail.bsdforen.de (bsdforen.de [212.204.60.79]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E15713C447 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:03:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kamikaze@bsdforen.de) Received: from homeKamikaze.norad (nat-wh-1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.72.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.bsdforen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE405405C81; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:03:01 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <478B95C3.7030900@bsdforen.de> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:02:59 +0100 From: Dominic Fandrey User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071203) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ollivier Robert References: <20080111140144.59498431.timo.schoeler@riscworks.net> <200801111917.m0BJHP8u018954@lurza.secnetix.de> <20080111211500.GD79270@cicely12.cicely.de> <4787D1AF.3090900@tomjudge.com> <20080114152557.GA51877@keltia.freenix.fr> In-Reply-To: <20080114152557.GA51877@keltia.freenix.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD's problems as seen by the BSDForen.de community X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:03:03 -0000 Ollivier Robert wrote: > According to Tom Judge: >> I have also have this patch (against RELENG_6_2) but it also includes the >> HPN patches, please drop me a private email if you would like a copy. > > Both the "-c none" and the HPN patches are worthy for a ports patch. Please send a PR with both. If noone else does, I can commit them. That would be great, I've been wishing for this feature, too. Some of my machines don't have a CPU sufficient to encrypt data fast enough to entirely exploit a 100MBit line. I don't even dare think about 1GBit.