Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 18:49:57 +0900 From: Jun Kuriyama <kuriyama@imgsrc.co.jp> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/conf options src/sys/sys kernel.h src/sys/net netisr.c Message-ID: <7mbrgmwegq.wl@black.imgsrc.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040903072542.45860A-100000@fledge.watson.org> References: <20040903104015.GA1889@nemesis.md.0xfce3.net> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040903072542.45860A-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At Fri, 3 Sep 2004 07:31:23 -0400 (EDT),
Robert Watson wrote:
> Regarding IPv6: significant parts of IPv6 are safe in an MPSAFE
> environment, but not very well tested -- I've had about three or four
> minor but significant (fail stop) bugs to correct in the last two weeks.
> I don't doubt more are waiting. Areas that still require substantial
> attention in locking include the IPv6 forwarding path, ip6fw, and
> multicast discovery/routing. If you're using IPv6 on a local system
> largely for services like TCP consumption and serving, you are probably
> OK, but might encounter fail stop (assertion failure) scenarios that
> require some debugging. So far, these problems have generally been
> resolved within 48 hours of the problem being reported.
>
> So if you're willing to do a bit of testing, MPSAFE operation is probably
> ready for you, and additional IPv6 testing is something I'd like to see
> more of, as I don't have easy access to a rich IPv6 environment.
Nice to hear. I'll start testing with mpsafenet=1 with usual workload
from Monday (sitting at console).
# I don't care if my box panics. :-)
--
Jun Kuriyama <kuriyama@imgsrc.co.jp> // IMG SRC, Inc.
<kuriyama@FreeBSD.org> // FreeBSD Project
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7mbrgmwegq.wl>