The following reply was made to PR kern/36097; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: "Liam J. Foy" <liamfoy@sepulcrum.org>
To: gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org
Cc: kern-bug-people@netbsd.org, gnats-admin@netbsd.org,
	netbsd-bugs@netbsd.org, root@garbled.net
Subject: Re: kern/36097: http fetch stall in networking code
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:46:14 +0100

 On 30 Mar 2007, at 17:40, Quentin Garnier wrote:
 
 > The following reply was made to PR kern/36097; it has been noted by  
 > GNATS.
 >
 > From: Quentin Garnier <cube@cubidou.net>
 > To: "Liam J. Foy" <liamfoy@sepulcrum.org>
 > Cc: gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org
 > Subject: Re: kern/36097: http fetch stall in networking code
 > Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:38:55 +0200
 >
 >  --uaVifq136IIwehrE
 >  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
 >  Content-Disposition: inline
 >  Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 >
 >  On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 05:36:05PM +0100, Liam J. Foy wrote:
 >> =20
 >> On 30 Mar 2007, at 16:55, Tim Rightnour wrote:
 >> =20
 >>> The following reply was made to PR kern/36097; it has been noted  
 >>> by =20
 >>> GNATS.
 >>>
 >>> From: Tim Rightnour <root@garbled.net>
 >>> To: gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org
 >>> Cc: netbsd-bugs@netbsd.org, gnats-admin@netbsd.org,
 >>> 	kern-bug-people@netbsd.org
 >>> Subject: Re: kern/36097: http fetch stall in networking code
 >>> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:50:23 -0700 (MST)
 >>>
 >>> On 30-Mar-2007 YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
 >>>> i guess it's failing to transmit any packets with sack, or =20
 >>>> something like
 >>>> that.
 >>>> are you using any hw offloading?
 >>>
 >>> I've tested this on 4.0/i386 with a vr0 (no hardware offload that  
 >>> =20
 >>> I know of),
 >>> and 4.0/prep with an fxp0 with cpusaver turned on.  Both acted =20
 >>> identically.
 >>>
 >>> At the time this was reported, a number of other people also =20
 >>> verified the same
 >>> behavior on thier 4.0 machines.
 >>>
 >> =20
 >> You say this is fixed in current - we just need to find out who  
 >> may have
 >> fixed this on purpose or by accident. Anyone know :-)?
 >
 >  Actually, it doesn't seem to be fixed in -current;  it doesn't  
 > fail all
 >  the time:  if you manage not to lose a signle packet, it will go
 >  through.
 >
 >  Also, it is not related to SACK (I had it turned off for my own
 >  experiments).
 >
 >  Quentin Garnier - cube@cubidou.net - cube@NetBSD.org
 >  "You could have made it, spitting out benchmarks
 >  Owe it to yourself not to fail"
 >  Amplifico, Spitting Out Benchmarks, Hometakes Vol. 2, 2005.
 
 Ah - I just assumed that if he said it had been fixed on current it
 had been - I dont have access to my machines at this moment.
 
 I'll try to have a look at it tomorrow.
 
 		---
 		Liam J. Foy
 		<liamjfoy@netbsd.org>