04:37:05 [illumos-gate] 16510 mdb incorrectly prints the IPv6 Traffic Class -- Bill Sommerfeld 06:54:11 wiedi_ there is known problem with framebuffer: https://code.illumos.org/c/illumos-gate/+/1879 06:54:12 → CODE REVIEW 1879: 14320 loader.efi: Do not use as frame buffer BLT-only GOPs. (NEW) | https://www.illumos.org/issues/14320 07:21:55 tsoome: oh cool - I'll give that a spin, thanks! 07:28:31 it should be fairly safe, that patch is quite old 07:30:02 in worst case scenario, we still end up with no framebuffer, but without KMS/DRM drivers we really can not help about it. 07:38:03 I'm currently in Crete, only checking computer time to time:) but I'm back next week. 07:38:51 enjoy your time :) 09:23:14 rmustacc: Robert, do you have plans to add NVMe reservation support to nvmeadm/libnvme ? 13:10:50 there's an existing API for doing SCSI-2 and SCSI-3 style reservations on disks (mhd(4I)).. that'd probably be the preferred way to do it (add support for those ioctls) 13:15:38 jbk do you mind to look on https://code.illumos.org/c/illumos-gate/+/1746 once again?:) 13:15:39 → CODE REVIEW 1746: 14151 truss: truss should recognize VMM ioctl codes (NEW) | https://www.illumos.org/issues/14151 13:15:56 sure 13:56:55 vetal, jbk: While I owe Hans stuff on namespaces as part of taking on libnvme, I have no plans for multipathing. We don't use it at all and I'm usually suspect of it from the Fishworks days due to CAP. We don't use it, so I have zero plans to work on it. 13:58:36 rmustacc: Thanks, Probably it should be added. I will take a look. 13:58:47 I suspect you want what Jason points out as something that exists on the disk device rather than the controller/namespace. So things like mhd probably want to be the starting point. 13:58:59 I would review an IPD on this and would highly encourage that prior to any work being done. 13:59:33 But also, we need to work out how that can be tested and related by folks without multipathing systems. 14:00:08 I have a lot of libnvme work ahead of me and like 99% of folks with NVMe no multipath (by design). 14:18:34 I do wnat to emphasize, if someone is doing this, please write up an IPD before we get to CR. That will save us a lot of time and back and forth. 14:32:37 rmustacc: I would like to add it into my repo, then check working and then probably discuss. 14:45:47 I would really encourage that we get to a shared design first. If you need to prototype fine, but if this becomes it has to be the way I did it because it's already done and I refused to discus design, I'm going to be disappointed/frustrated. 14:46:57 I've seen enough arguments about design in reviews that I feel very strongly that we should agree on it before CR. 15:37:28 rmustacc: "CAP" as in Brewer's CAP theorem? 16:01:33 rmustacc: you are right, I want to get prototype. Of course it should be discussed before going to upstream. 17:30:57 Thank you neirac for the SO_REUSEPORT email & gerrit, and testing-so-far. I'll have a good look at this on Monday (modulo any disasters). 18:06:26 looks like the new review is https://code.illumos.org/c/illumos-gate/+/3457 18:06:27 → CODE REVIEW 3457: 12455 Add SO_REUSEPORT authored-by: araragihokuto⊙oc (NEW) | https://www.illumos.org/issues/12455 21:18:44 [illumos-gate] 16528 clean up low-hanging warnings in svccfg(8) -- Richard Lowe