On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 02:22:18PM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2013/12/18 00:46, RD Thrush wrote: > > FWIW, I built a GENERIC kernel from cvs as of Nov 11 00:00 GMT and that > > kernel > > did *not* panic. I noticed that although bpf.c was reverted, bpfdesc.h was > > not. > > hmmm, bpfdesc.h *was* reverted...
And then unreverted, and then bpf.c was re-reverted. Make the world stop spinning. .... Ken > > --------------------- > PatchSet 3506 > Date: 2013/11/11 03:06:43 > Author: dlg > Branch: HEAD > Tag: (none) > Log: > replace the user of ticks in a condition like "interval + start < ticks" > with "ticks - start > interval" because the latter copes with the ticks > value wrapping. > > pointed out by guenther@ > ok krw@ > > Members: > bpf.c:1.83->1.84 > bpfdesc.h:1.18->1.19 > > > ... > > --------------------- > PatchSet 3508 > Date: 2013/11/11 16:21:08 > Author: sthen > Branch: HEAD > Tag: (none) > Log: > Revert bpf.c 1.84 / bpfdesc.h 1.19 for now, "panic: timeout_add: to_ticks (-1) > < 0" seen by RD Thrush, http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.bugs/20113 > where he has a long-running process using bpf which is active at the time of > panic. krw@ agrees with reverting for now. > > Members: > bpf.c:1.84->1.85 > bpfdesc.h:1.19->1.20
