2016/freebsd-net/20160131.freebsd-net
Messages: 86, sorted by subject
|
Last update: Mon Feb 13 14:18:56 UTC 2023
|
|
home | up | archive sorted by: subject | author | date | reverse date
1. Jan 27 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 161277] [em] [patch] BMC cannot receive IPMI traffic after loading or enablin 2. Jan 25 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 193452] Dell PowerEdge 210 II -- Kernel panic bce (broadcom) 3. Jan 30 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 194485] Userland cannot add IPv6 prefix routes 4. Jan 27 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 195078] em tx_dma_fails and dropped packets 5. Jan 27 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 199174] em tx and rx hang 6. Jan 27 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 200221] em0 watchdog timeout under load 7. Jan 25 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 203524] TCP checksum failed on igb network adapter 8. Jan 27 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 203922] The kern.ipc.acceptqueue limit is too low 9. Jan 29 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 203922] The kern.ipc.acceptqueue limit is too low 10. Jan 30 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 203922] The kern.ipc.acceptqueue limit is too low 11. Jan 25 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 206494] lock order reversal (sleepable after non-sleepable) in in_mcast.c/bxe 12. Jan 24 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 206528] Emulex LPe 16002 FC HBA Not Recognized by oce(4) driver 13. Jan 24 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 206528] Emulex LPe 16002 FC HBA Not Recognized by oce(4) driver 14. Jan 24 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 206528] Emulex LPe 16002 FC HBA Not Recognized by oce(4) driver 15. Jan 24 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 206528] Emulex LPe 16002 FC HBA Not Recognized by oce(4) driver 16. Jan 24 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 206528] Emulex LPe 16002 FC HBA Not Recognized by oce(4) driver 17. Jan 24 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 206528] Emulex LPe 16002 FC HBA Not Recognized by oce(4) driver 18. Jan 27 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 206533] Intel I219-V in 11-CURRENT and 10-STABLE 19. Jan 25 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 206533] Missing Intel I219-V support in 10-STABLE and 11-CURRENT 20. Jan 25 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 206533] Missing Intel I219-V support in 10-STABLE and 11-CURRENT
21. Jan 27 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 206533] Missing Intel I219-V support in 10-STABLE and 11-CURRENT 22. Jan 27 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 206533] Missing Intel I219-V support in 10-STABLE and 11-CURRENT 23. Jan 25 bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.o [Bug 206567] [msk] msk0: watchdog timeout - 88E8053 on i386 24. Jan 25 Phabricator [Differential] [Closed] D4972: hyperv/hn: Partly rework transmission path 25. Jan 25 Phabricator [Differential] [Closed] D4977: hyperv/hn: Use m_copydata for chimney sending. 26. Jan 26 sepherosa_gmail.com (Sephe [Differential] [Request, 136 lines] D5074: hyperv/hn: Improve sending performance 27. Jan 28 sepherosa_gmail.com (Sephe [Differential] [Request, 217 lines] D5098: hyperv/hn: Reorganize TX csum offloadin 28. Jan 28 sepherosa_gmail.com (Sephe [Differential] [Request, 5 lines] D5099: hyperv/hn: Enable IP header checksum offl 29. Jan 24 Luigi Rizzo Re: Chelsio T520-SO-CR low performance (netmap tested) for RX 30. Jan 24 Marcus Cenzatti Re: Chelsio T520-SO-CR low performance (netmap tested) for RX 31. Jan 24 Konstantin Belousov Re: Does FreeBSD have sendmmsg or recvmmsg system calls? 32. Jan 24 Gary Jennejohn Re: Does FreeBSD have sendmmsg or recvmmsg system calls? 33. Jan 25 Boris Astardzhiev Re: Does FreeBSD have sendmmsg or recvmmsg system calls? 34. Jan 26 Konstantin Belousov Re: Does FreeBSD have sendmmsg or recvmmsg system calls? 35. Jan 26 Luigi Rizzo Re: Does FreeBSD have sendmmsg or recvmmsg system calls? 36. Jan 26 Gary Jennejohn Re: Does FreeBSD have sendmmsg or recvmmsg system calls? 37. Jan 26 Luigi Rizzo Re: Does FreeBSD have sendmmsg or recvmmsg system calls? 38. Jan 26 Daniel Eischen Re: Does FreeBSD have sendmmsg or recvmmsg system calls? 39. Jan 27 Gary Jennejohn Re: Does FreeBSD have sendmmsg or recvmmsg system calls? 40. Jan 27 Luigi Rizzo Re: Does FreeBSD have sendmmsg or recvmmsg system calls?
41. Jan 27 Bruce Evans Re: Does FreeBSD have sendmmsg or recvmmsg system calls? 42. Jan 27 Kevin Oberman Re: Does FreeBSD have sendmmsg or recvmmsg system calls? 43. Jan 27 Boris Astardzhiev Re: Does FreeBSD have sendmmsg or recvmmsg system calls? 44. Jan 27 Boris Astardzhiev Re: Does FreeBSD have sendmmsg or recvmmsg system calls? 45. Jan 27 Konstantin Belousov Re: Does FreeBSD have sendmmsg or recvmmsg system calls? 46. Jan 27 Alfred Perlstein Re: Does FreeBSD have sendmmsg or recvmmsg system calls? 47. Jan 28 Daniel Eischen Re: Does FreeBSD have sendmmsg or recvmmsg system calls? 48. Jan 27 Sean Bruno em/igb CFT 49. Jan 28 Eric van Gyzen Intel I219-V Support? 50. Jan 28 Pieper, Jeffrey E RE: Intel I219-V Support? 51. Jan 29 Kubilay Kocak Re: Intel I219-V Support? 52. Jan 29 Pieper, Jeffrey E RE: Intel I219-V Support? 53. Jan 25 Russell L. Carter ipfw NAT /etc/rc.firewall question 54. Jan 25 Ian Smith Re: ipfw NAT /etc/rc.firewall question 55. Jan 25 Russell L. Carter Re: ipfw NAT /etc/rc.firewall question 56. Jan 24 Ben Woods Re: Multicast routing on FreeBSD 11 current 57. Jan 24 Andrey V. Elsukov Re: Multicast routing on FreeBSD 11 current 58. Jan 24 =?UTF-8?Q?Olivier_Cochard= Re: Multicast routing on FreeBSD 11 current 59. Jan 24 Marko Zec Re: Multicast routing on FreeBSD 11 current 60. Jan 24 Ben Woods Re: Multicast routing on FreeBSD 11 current
61. Jan 24 bugzilla-noreply@FreeBSD.o Problem reports for freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org that need special attention 62. Jan 24 Luigi Rizzo solved: Re: Chelsio T520-SO-CR low performance (netmap tested) for RX 63. Jan 24 Adrian Chadd Re: solved: Re: Chelsio T520-SO-CR low performance (netmap tested) for RX 64. Jan 24 Marcus Cenzatti Re: solved: Re: Chelsio T520-SO-CR low performance (netmap tested) for RX 65. Jan 24 Adrian Chadd Re: solved: Re: Chelsio T520-SO-CR low performance (netmap tested) for RX 66. Jan 24 Marcus Cenzatti Re: solved: Re: Chelsio T520-SO-CR low performance (netmap tested) for RX 67. Jan 24 Marcus Cenzatti Re: solved: Re: Chelsio T520-SO-CR low performance (netmap tested) for RX 68. Jan 24 Adrian Chadd Re: solved: Re: Chelsio T520-SO-CR low performance (netmap tested) for RX 69. Jan 24 Luigi Rizzo Re: solved: Re: Chelsio T520-SO-CR low performance (netmap tested) for RX 70. Jan 24 Navdeep Parhar Re: solved: Re: Chelsio T520-SO-CR low performance (netmap tested) for RX 71. Jan 24 Navdeep Parhar Re: solved: Re: Chelsio T520-SO-CR low performance (netmap tested) for RX 72. Jan 24 Marcus Cenzatti Re: solved: Re: Chelsio T520-SO-CR low performance (netmap tested) for RX 73. Jan 24 Luigi Rizzo Re: solved: Re: Chelsio T520-SO-CR low performance (netmap tested) for RX 74. Jan 24 Luigi Rizzo Re: solved: Re: Chelsio T520-SO-CR low performance (netmap tested) for RX 75. Jan 24 Marcus Cenzatti Re: solved: Re: Chelsio T520-SO-CR low performance (netmap tested) for RX 76. Jan 24 Marcus Cenzatti Re: solved: Re: Chelsio T520-SO-CR low performance (netmap tested) for RX 77. Jan 24 Marcus Cenzatti Re: solved: Re: Chelsio T520-SO-CR low performance (netmap tested) for RX 78. Jan 25 Xiaoye Sun swaping ring slots between NIC ring and Host ring does not always success 79. Jan 26 Pavel Odintsov Re: swaping ring slots between NIC ring and Host ring does not always success 80. Jan 26 Luigi Rizzo Re: swaping ring slots between NIC ring and Host ring does not always success
81. Jan 29 Xiaoye Sun Re: swaping ring slots between NIC ring and Host ring does not always success 82. Jan 29 Luigi Rizzo Re: swaping ring slots between NIC ring and Host ring does not always success 83. Jan 29 Xiaoye Sun Re: swaping ring slots between NIC ring and Host ring does not always success 84. Jan 29 Xiaoye Sun Re: swaping ring slots between NIC ring and Host ring does not always success 85. Jan 29 Luigi Rizzo Re: swaping ring slots between NIC ring and Host ring does not always success 86. Jan 27 Michael McConville Undefined shift overflow in dhclient(8)
home | up | archive sorted by: subject | author | date | reverse date