- Queries
- All Stories
- Search
- Advanced Search
- Transactions
- Transaction Logs
Advanced Search
Mar 2 2021
Jan 19 2021
Dec 13 2020
Oct 21 2020
Sep 10 2020
Aug 30 2020
Aug 24 2020
Aug 23 2020
Aug 21 2020
Jul 9 2020
Jul 6 2020
Jun 29 2020
Jun 15 2020
Jun 11 2020
Jun 3 2020
I'm the defacto if_oce maintainer. I approve the change to oce_if.c
May 14 2020
Apr 28 2020
Apr 27 2020
Apr 22 2020
Mar 11 2020
Mar 3 2020
From a technical standpoint this looks good.
Feb 6 2020
Feb 1 2020
Jan 20 2020
Just to be explicit, go ahead and commit this. Thanks!
Jan 11 2020
Dec 3 2019
Nov 18 2019
Nov 15 2019
Nov 14 2019
Incorporate feedback from scottl
Nov 4 2019
For the OCE change that is fine.
Oct 31 2019
Oct 30 2019
Oct 29 2019
Oct 24 2019
Aug 13 2019
@vbhakta_vmware.com is there anything I can do to facilitate the changes this driver needs to get it into the tree?
Jul 23 2019
May 29 2019
May 18 2019
May 5 2019
May 1 2019
Apr 26 2019
Apr 25 2019
Apr 24 2019
Apr 16 2019
Apr 11 2019
Apr 3 2019
If this requires a specific src rev is there an OSVERSION that rev corresponds to so the port can test for it before it builds?
Mar 30 2019
Mar 25 2019
Mar 24 2019
Mar 23 2019
Mar 22 2019
Feb 24 2019
Jan 28 2019
In D15307#402094, @jrmoede_gmail.com wrote:Have a HighPoint 2840a that uses that uses this driver. How could I test this out?
Jan 21 2019
Jan 13 2019
Jan 4 2019
In D18536#400013, @markj wrote:In D18536#395272, @jpaetzel wrote:In D18536#395145, @delphij wrote:LGTM (the unlocked use of sc->ioctl_data_mem looks worrisome to me, but the proposed change won't worsen the situation). Do you have a chance to test this on real hardware? (@jpaetzel do you know someone who may be able to help with that?).
My last 9750 died a while ago. I'll ping Austin @ ix to see if he can rig up a system for us to test with.
Ping?
Dec 31 2018
Dec 13 2018
In D18536#395145, @delphij wrote:LGTM (the unlocked use of sc->ioctl_data_mem looks worrisome to me, but the proposed change won't worsen the situation). Do you have a chance to test this on real hardware? (@jpaetzel do you know someone who may be able to help with that?).
Nov 28 2018
Nov 27 2018
Nov 8 2018
Nov 5 2018
What's the plan for ZFS then? This looks to me like using fstab for ZFS, which is suboptimal, or bespoke FreeBSD ZFS code.
Oct 30 2018
Oct 22 2018
Oct 17 2018
Oct 9 2018
Oct 8 2018
Sep 29 2018
Sep 25 2018
Aug 31 2018
Jul 9 2018
Jun 20 2018
In D15936#337243, @brooks wrote:In D15936#337219, @jpaetzel wrote:I'm not sure what the consequences of returning an error here are versus silently truncating. Before this change you'd have hostname "longerthan16chars.local" and it would get passed through as "longerthan16cha" but now mount_smbfs would fail with an error? If that assertion is true maybe it would be better just to copy and truncate at 16 than to return an error.
For the local host name, it seems that truncating to 15-bytes is the right thing. For the server name, it's probably a bug if we are given a server name larger than 16 bytes and we should fail.
I'm not sure what the consequences of returning an error here are versus silently truncating. Before this change you'd have hostname "longerthan16chars.local" and it would get passed through as "longerthan16cha" but now mount_smbfs would fail with an error? If that assertion is true maybe it would be better just to copy and truncate at 16 than to return an error.