|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Wilko BulteWilko Bulte
Date: May 25, 2008 23:31
Quoting Bruce M. Simpson, who wrote on Sun, May 25, 2008 at 11:26:48PM +0100 ..
> Note that __netnatm__ is still alive and kicking and should be for some
> time to come. Folk who are using ADSL modems natively with ppp(8) will
> continue to need it.
>
> ATM shows no signs of going away as a WAN access technology for people
> in the UK, although its use in the core outside of British Telecom is
> being eroded by newer technologies.
Doesn't BT supply its customers with DSL modems that take care of the ATM
stuff on the SL, while supplying a "plain" IP connection on the customer
side??
|
| |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: M. Warner LoshM. Warner Losh
Date: May 25, 2008 19:01
In message: <20080525180014.S63463@ fledge.watson.org>
Robert Watson FreeBSD.ORG> writes:
: On Sun, 25 May 2008, John Birrell wrote:
:
: > Remove sun4v from the list of arches in 'make universe'. There has been
: > no active development on it for over a year now and it isn't
: > reliable under a simple buildworld. Developers can't be expected to
: > test code targeted for it.
:
: Having an architecture in make universe isn't about making the code work, it's
: about encouraging the code to remain compilable even though most developers
: don't actually work with the architecture. Sun4v is arguably our most
: edge-case architecture right now, but given that it shares a lot of code with
: sparc64 and sparc64 is run by a non-trivial number of people (more than arm?),
: keeping it compiling hasn't proven very difficult. And recent universe
: breakage has often-as-not been in i386 and amd64, not sun4v.
:
: Is there something in your recent work that prevents sun4v from compiling and
: hence justifies disabling it entirely, and hence guaranteeing it won't compile
: in the future because it falls off the "make it compile" radar? If so, then a ...
|
| Show full article (1.71Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Bruce M. SimpsonBruce M. Simpson
Date: May 25, 2008 16:35
Tony Finch wrote:
> On Sun, 25 May 2008, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
>
>> ATM shows no signs of going away as a WAN access technology for people in the
>> UK, although its use in the core outside of British Telecom is being eroded by
>> newer technologies.
>>
>
> Doesn't BT's 21cn mean the death of ATM there too?
>
The G.998.1 part of ADSL2+ still mandates ATM as the transport. Given
how BT tend to roll things it out I would speculate that they are still
using ATM after 21CN migration, although I have no data to confirm this
either way.
PPPoA is not going away any time soon -- it's written into the ITU specs
for G.DMT-lite after all -- and there is a huge installed user base for
that technology.
|
| Show full article (1.34Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Tony FinchTony Finch
Date: May 25, 2008 16:20
On Sun, 25 May 2008, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
>
> ATM shows no signs of going away as a WAN access technology for people in the
> UK, although its use in the core outside of British Telecom is being eroded by
> newer technologies.
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Norikatsu ShigemuraNorikatsu Shigemura
Date: May 25, 2008 15:43
On Sun, 25 May 2008 20:24:07 +0000 (UTC)
John Birrell freebsd.org> wrote:> jb 2008-05-25 20:24:07 UTC
> FreeBSD src repository
> Modified files:
> sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/dtrace dtrace.c
> Log:
> Comment out the code that breaks with invariants. This is stuff that is
> still WIP along with the lockstat provider, so there is no harm leaving
> it out for now.
Thank you!
> Revision Changes Path
> 1.3 +2 -0 src/sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/dtrace/dtrace.c
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Robert WatsonRobert Watson
Date: May 25, 2008 15:42
On Sun, 25 May 2008, John Birrell wrote:
> Backout the change to remove sun4v.
>
> Note that sun4v is currently broken on T2000 hardware so it's pretty
> much a lame duck at this point.
Thanks -- the future of sun4v may or may not be bright, but I think keeping it
compiling comes at relatively low cost vs. benefit.
Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge
_______________________________________________
cvs-all@ freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "cvs-all-unsubscribe@ freebsd.org"
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Robert WatsonRobert Watson
Date: May 25, 2008 15:35
On Sun, 25 May 2008, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
> Note that __netnatm__ is still alive and kicking and should be for some time
> to come. Folk who are using ADSL modems natively with ppp(8) will continue
> to need it.
Yup, I have no negative plans for netnatm in mind -- I actually did the basic
locking work for it a few years ago, although was never able to test it
properly due to lack of ATM test hardware. netatm was a sufficiently
complicated subsystem as to make that impossible. If you have any bug reports
regarding locking and netnatm, I'm happy to field them. I put a basic
subsystem lock around netnatm, but you could imagine something more granular
if performance results suggested that would be useful.
Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge
_______________________________________________
cvs-all@ freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "cvs-all-unsubscribe@ freebsd.org"
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
