In D18598#396593, @sbruno wrote:

Doesn't this patch need to be conditional somehow (FreeBSD versions < 12 don't need this).

In D17646#379198, @linimon wrote:

I'm not sure that PORTEPOCH can start with zero.

In D17646#376890, @franco_opnsense.org wrote:

@skozlov feel free to take maintainership of net/intel-em-kmod and thanks for working on these modules! :)

Original patch committed in r481900
The revision wasn't automatically closed because I wasn't able to use the arcanist properly :(

net/intel-{ix,em}-kmod: freeze PORTREVISION and PORTEPOCH

I'll add -Wno-error to the master port, but because of the amount of testing it will require - I'd like to make it a separate review.

Add X5* controllers to supported list

In D17443#372344, @koobs wrote:

Looks good except for -Werror. This all matches the port WIP I have in my tree, except for the additions:

MANPAGENAME=        ixgbe
 MANPAGELINKS=        ix if_ix if_ixgbe
 ​MAX_NETMAP_OSVERSION=        1199999  # Doesn't build w/NETMAP on 12

In D17443#372074, @sbruno wrote:

Does this require a LICENSE or some sort?

Adding port maintainer as a blocking reviewer.

The validation exposed a memory leak for a specific traffic pattern. After additional investigation the same leak was found in iflib igb/em driver as well.
As that's the only issue discovered during testing, and, most probably, it's not caused by the changes in the patch - it was decided to merge the patch.

In D13885#295301, @sbruno wrote:

Unrelated, is there a use case for FreeBSD Bhyve here? If we had PF support on FreeBSD, could we use pass through to use VFs?

Blocking until Intel internal validation is complete.

Smoke test passed. IMO good to go after Portlint issue is resolved.

Validation completed successfully.

This seems ugly to me, but that's the only way it works. ${CHMOD} -R doesn't do the right thing on 10.

I was able to reproduce the build issue as well using poudriere 3.2.
The inconsistency in behavior is caused by this commit, which is in 11, but not in 10: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=283997
After the distfile is unpacked - extract-fixup-modes target from bsd.port.mk tries to fix the permissions on the directories, but on 10 it does that only for the top level directory, so it can't look into the inner one.

Updated to a newer, silently updated version. Ready for review.

Updated to 1.8.1, unbroken. Ready for review.

Needs additional testing.

Needs additional testing.

Please let me know if you need another round of testing done to commit this one