From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 16:32:26 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <b3de56a08fbc4b0c785562b98898b2b2@kw.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <o2tb85d21141004181236q9a9ef530j9a4bfae80b411646@mail.gmail.com>
References: <o2tb85d21141004181236q9a9ef530j9a4bfae80b411646@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] multiple pings cause panic
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 07788bfc-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> term% for (i in `{seq 1 254}) {ip/ping -n 1 192.168.1.1&}

i think you mean

	for(i in `{seq 1 254}){ip/ping -n1 192.168.1.$i}

> panic: Fsprotoclone: all conversations in use
> panic :Fsprotoclone: all conversations in use
> dumpstack disabled
> cpu0: exiting
>
> Regardless of whether my program was sensible I guess this isn't
> supposed to happen. Right?

nope.  that's the way it's supposed to go.
the idea is that if all the conversations are used up,
then your machine is useless and you might as well
panic.

however, a fair question to ask is, is this limit
reasonable, and is panicing really the right thing
to do.

i'd guess printing nasties on the console makes
more sense.

- erik