From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Apr 15 18:25:30 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA26634
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 18:25:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cdsnet.net (mail.cdsnet.net [204.118.244.5])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA26625;
          Tue, 15 Apr 1997 18:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cdsnet.net (mail.cdsnet.net [204.118.244.5])
          by mail.cdsnet.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA03296;
          Tue, 15 Apr 1997 18:25:20 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 18:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jaye Mathisen  <mrcpu@cdsnet.net>
To: dyson@FreeBSD.ORG
cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Doing the FreeBSD tightrope walk.
In-Reply-To: <199704160103.UAA01158@dyson.iquest.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.95.970415182314.23227N-100000@mail.cdsnet.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > Any tips appreciated.
> > 
> Turn off bounce buffer support.  There are some problems with
> allocating too much bounce memory.  If you need bounce buffers,
> inside of the bounce buffers calculation (#ifdef BOUNCE_BUFFERS)


This worked. (dg sent a note to the same, and actually, I had figured it
out by the time the mail came).

What is aggravating I guess is that I can swear that I've seen on this
list statements to the effect of "Bounce buffers support doesn't hurt
anything, so you might as well leave it in".

Obviously false.

Oh well, now if somebody fixes my regular NFS panics I will be a happier
camper than you can imagine.