can't say how correct this is, but it'll be great to have it fixed!

Yes, can we please get this committed ASAP? I just spent some time debugging this problem. (Other solution would be for base not to read /etc/make.conf, but I have a feeling this commit is more likely.)

• minor spelling and grammar fixups. (was originally included)
• revert this change... (release.sh)
• remove whitespace at end of the copyright lines..

I am planning on committing 1 and 2 individually.

In D26220#587460, @pnagato_protonmail.com wrote:

@jmg @imp I have seen other places where KASSERT was re-defined as

#define	KASSERT(exp,msg) assert((exp))

Might I suggest that you enable NetBSD's cp tests, and add necessary tests to prevent this breakage again?

minor update to include some new register definitions.. unused for now..

don't overwrite the RCR register, keep some bits set. This gets
MTU up to 4096 - mumble working w/o my devices crashing...

In D26220#584528, @pnagato_protonmail.com wrote:

In D26220#584521, @imp wrote:

In D26220#584195, @pnagato_protonmail.com wrote:

@jmg @imp Need your input how to proceed on the sbuf_negative test.

I'm having trouble understanding its purpose. Maybe you could give a one or two sentence summary of what it should test?

@imp I am assuming the sbuf_new_negative_test is supposed to test for cases for which sbuf_new fails to create a sbuf.

From sys/kern/subr_sbuf.c

	KASSERT(length >= 0,
	    ("attempt to create an sbuf of negative length (%d)", length));
	KASSERT((flags & ~SBUF_USRFLAGMSK) == 0,
	    ("%s called with invalid flags", __func__));

or when SBMALLOC fails..

move some debug prints to before the error...

Thanks for committing this. I've run the patch for a while, and it solves my panic, and didn't introduce any others.

commited in https://reviews.freebsd.org/rS363683

In D25874#573062, @zeising wrote:

Removed manual pages need to be added to ObsoleteFiles.inc as well.

didn't complain about missing file on command line, that being
rp's module dir..

forgot to remove from files..

too smart w/ command line, include the rest of the files..

I'll wait to get a few more reports of tests before committing..

ok, these should address all of your comments.

update to address hselasky's comments.

make it relative to HEAD.. Post white space commit..

I'm going to commit the change (which the grammar fix) in the next day or two if I don't get any more feedback.

In D17541#569015, @freqlabs wrote:

Yes a PR clarifying this in OpenZFS would be greatly appreciated. Any change here would only be good for MFC. I think the wording suggested by @delphij is a bit more clear.

@freqlabs let ms know if you just want to integrate this into the OpenZFS update, or what.

Looks fine. You should look at unrolling the loop to 3 or 4 rounds. Looking at the A72 optimization guide, it shows that there is a 3 cycle latency, but throughput of 1. Section 4.10 gives example showing three pairs to achieve max perf.

Looks good to me. I'm adding ngie as they did the port to Python 3. I have not run and verified that this works under Python 3, but fully support the move to 3.

In D21886#554614, @imp wrote:

Cool script. It would be better to add the alias with devfs. Then it would disappear w/o devd needing all the info...

I took Daniel O'Connor's script from: https://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-usb@freebsd.org/msg14258.html

a later diff has addressed these comments.

these should not have been marked done. Why phab did this I have no clue. Maybe they think that if you update a patch you address all of your comments, but that is a TERRIBLE assumption to make.

update with comments from manu

add the path to the diff...

If you want to test, you generate a self sign cert:
openssl req -x509 -newkey rsa:4096 -keyout key.pem -out cert.pem -days 365

In D24945#549225, @gordon wrote:

In D24945#549197, @cem wrote:

We should also disable SSL2, if we do not already. And perhaps TLS 1.0?

SSLv2 already doesn't exist, so no problem there.

TLSv1.0 is still widely deployed. I think removing support entirely is premature.

Tested and working.

Sorry, got a bit excited that things worked.

This booted on my 07S board w/o me having to set hw.ncpu in loader!

In D14429#548455, @skibo wrote:

In D14429#548354, @jmg wrote:

I just tested this on my Cora Z7-07S board, and it looks like there's a hardware bug that prevents this patch from working.

I added a printf to dump mp_maxid and mp_ncpus, and I get 1 and 2 respectively, which per the TRM indicates that it's suppose to have 2 cpus instead of 1.

Crud. I guess the number of CPUs isn't properly represented in the SCU config register. Do you know the value of the entire register? From the u-boot prompt,
type "md 0xf8f00004 1". Another idea is to key off the device field of the SLCR's PSS_IDCODE register at 0xf8000530. Can you get that value too?
It also shows up in a sysctl under "hw.zynq.pss_idcode".

I just tested this on my Cora Z7-07S board, and it looks like there's a hardware bug that prevents this patch from working.

Thanks, I'll look at committing this. I have a Cora Z7 that needs this.

Is there a reason this hasn't been committed?

In D22068#482123, @marcel wrote:

Would you mind splitting the changes into 2 reviews/commits. I don't oppose the changes, but they are logically unrelated/independent and it helps us with reversals and/or MFCs if they are separate commits.

Yeah, after a bit of splunking after writing that comment, I discovered that it was unused.

why was this removed? This was necessary to prevent lock inversion due to a kq being in another kq...

oh, don't forget to bump date!

looks good! Thanks!

Now that memset_s is part of the standard, should we just make explicit_bzero a wrapper for memset_s?

For reference, on an active pf firewall, before the patch, ~1.56% cpu core was used on the purge thread, after the patch, .427% cpu core. over a third less CPU. This is with the same 128k hash table size.

CPU usage calculated by taking the time pf purge ran and dividing it by the difference between now, and lstart:

ps -ax -o lstart,time,command | grep pf; date

Sun Sep 9 16:31:23 2018 0:30.95 [pf purge]
Sun Sep 9 19:33:53 2018 0:00.02 grep pf
Sun Sep 9 19:33:53 UTC 2018

note, if you apply the diff and check it w/ svn diff -x -wb, you'll see that the only change is the comment, the if, and the braces.

All comments are minor.

ok, this should be ready to land.. Not going to update printf(9),
that'll be a different patch, and there are missing vprintf and vlog
from the body of the man page...

add fix for when printf returns an error, pass the error up
correctly.. prf_buf does not return an error..

All but the printf error is addressed, and the next patch will address this issue.

Fix most of the issues. I will address the cast to int w/ a KASSERT in another update.

Update and address various comments.

simple fix, limit local_read_rate to be 0 or 1. Even more simple that the fix that was committed.