Re: ONTOPIC - FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT - Not a bunch of licence Jihad crap
-- 06/01/01 21:44 -0800 - Jeremiah Gowdy Re: ONTOPIC - FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT - Not a bunch of licence Jihad crap: Claiming that software isn't "free" because it's not valuable is redefining the word "free" to mean something that has no cost, yet has value. free (fr) adj. Costing nothing; gratuitous: Yeah, and 'gay' means 'joyful'. The word has absolutely nothing to do with your value judgements. Useful != Free. No cost == Free. So, how much money will 'Free Tibet' charge you for a country? Now, I am not a native english speaker and even I have realized that 'free' means a bit more than just 'free beer' in the english language. software, and that's a pretty damned closed minded point of view. I've written hundreds of DOS and Windows applications, which are FREE, although I didn't include the source code with them. Your massive generalization that So they are 'free' to modify, 'free' to distribute, 'free' to look into? Maybe I'm missing something here, but despite not being an English major, I seem to recognize the word 'free' in 'freedom'. What does a programmer gain from mislabeling his products? Freeware != free software, not just because 'free' is more than just 'free beer'. you can't start redefining words like "free" to push your rabid open source agenda. The people of the past who contributed their software to the scene in the form of public domain, freeware, and shareware were writing code in the same spirit as those of us who write open source code today. So why No. While (with the exception of 'Shareware' to a certain point), Freeware is a gift, 'free software' is more than that. It is a 'call to participate', to 'evaluate', to learn. One cannot learn much from closed source, no matter how much the author charges for its use. 'Free', for me and for a lot of people out there, means my freedom to extend my horizon by looking inside the program. My freedom to enhance and contribute, my freedom to borrow and my freedom to give. This is freedom, this is what 'free software' is all about. Not just a gift from one programmer to his/her users, it's much more. Even pay-ware with open source gives me that freedom. One of the most misinterpreted sentences in '90 is "Information wants to be free". This is not about money, it's about freedom. don't you get off your goddamned high horse and stop belittling the "free" software for other platforms simply because it doesn't comply with your open source jihad bullshit. Whohoho, insults? Well, I guess it's what has to follow if arguments are amiss. I guess this is a thread that should not be here and I apologize for adding my $0.02 to it, even though I know it's wrong, but I am one of these 'open source jihad bullshit assholes' and I don't like it if someone belittles the efforts of my fellow coders out there. jonas -- http://www.advogato.org/person/jLoki To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Boot process robustness
John Baldwin wrote: /boot/loader.conf perhaps, but how does the loader know that the previous boot failed so that it knows to fall back? This is much harder, as a failed kernel boot usually results in a hang or an instant CPU reset. Loader sets a flag before booting, and the boot process resets it at the end. Of course, loader doesn't have write capability. -- Daniel C. Sobral(8-DCS) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] "There is no spoon." -- Kiki To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: KVM switch vs. FreeBSD psm driver (Solved!)
Do you know if this fixes the problem the following problem that I started experiencing somewhere in the RELENG_4 line? For some machines, if the KVM is not pointed at the box, the keyboard will not probe properly, and does not respond for that session. As long as I boot with the KVM pointed at the machine during the boot process, it probes fine. This doesn't seem to impact the boot loaders, only after the kernel has loaded and probed. It's really annoying as my crashbox has this problem, so I have to swap to it every time I boot, and given the need to type continue in the serial gdb, I often miss the window. I guess your KVM switch won't let the kernel talk to the keyboard, if the switch wasn't pointed to the FreeBSD box. Remove the flags 0x1 from atkbd in your kernel config file. This flag makes atkbd fail, if it doesn't detect a keyboard. Without the flag, atkbd will install regardless of the absence of the keyboard. In RELENG_2 and RELENG_3, this flag wasn't specified to atkbd by default. In RELENG_4, the flag was added to GENERIC so that syscons will use a USB keyboard, if any, when there is no AT keyboard. Kazu To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: BSD dlopen and such
On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 10:19:56AM -0800, Doug White wrote: No. The linux compatbility is through the image activator. The syscalls have to be translated, otherwise if you were running as root and loaded a linux lib into a freebsd binary, then that lib called fcntl(), your system would reboot :) Ok ... I guess i will have to hear that blunder of mine for eternity :-)) -- Pascal Hofstee daeron @ shadowmere . student . utwente . nl begin LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs I'm a signature virus. Please copy me and help me spread. end To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: natd bug
Scratch that, I still get the error messages. For some reason they didn't show up for an hour or two. They usually show up immediately. -gordon On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Gordon Tetlow wrote: I used to get this exact same message, although my natd setup worked just fine. It was just filling up the logs. I then added -log_denied to the arguements for natd and it stopped spewing log messages. Here's what I run: /sbin/natd -unregistered_only -use_sockets -punch_fw 5050:10 -log_denied -n vx0 I don't know if this helps out your problem or not, but at least I don't get really annoying syslog messages every minute. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: OT: silence as an answer? (was: how to test out cron.c changes?)
Hello there! On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Doug Barton wrote: Gerhard Sittig wrote: [snip] Consider the following. We are in the spring and DST is "springing forward" at 2am. We have a job scheduled at 2:15 that takes one hour to run. There is another job scheduled at 3:20 that ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY cannot run unless the first job finishes. Aside from the fact that this is bad design, how should cron handle this situation? You can (and probably should) respond that this is not cron's responsibility, and come up with all kinds of ways to ameliorate this situation. My response will then be that if you can "fix" this situation without "fixing" cron, then cron doesn't really need to be "fixed." I think this is a really horrible example. It is impossible for FreeBSD to expect to catch bad design on a local administrator's part. The admin should implement some sort of semaphore (a file in /tmp) or just append the dependent job to the first job. We can't insulate stupidity, at least we shouldn't, otherwise FreeBSD is going to start looking more like Windows. I think that cron is broken because it doesn't handle DST shift properly. Just my opinion though, and we seem to get plenty of those around here =) With very little imagination you could easily come up with other situations where your proposed changes will cause more harm than good. On the other hand, the "damage" that cron is doing in these situations can easily be repaired by proper system design. Therefore your changes should not be incorporated. I'm rather confused by the paragraph there. It almost seems like your second sentence is contradicting the other two. Can you clarify "these" in the second paragraph? Of course, I have a horrible head cold that's keeping me from sleeping, so if it's perfectly obvious to everyone else, I'll be quiet and go back to bed. OpenBSD seems to get by with these changes just fine. I have a lot of respect for them and I think if they come up with a good solution to the DST problem, we should seriously consider it. I'm having a hard time coming up with good examples of harm, but then again, this head cold is somewhat impairing my faculties. Cheers, -gordon To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
SCSI DAT tape detection on Compaq DL380
Dear all, I have a Compaq DL380 with an integrated Compaq Smart Array Controller. I have succesfully managed to install the FreeBSD 4.2-20010104 and everything is fine but the DAT drive which is not detected. The DAT is connected to the same Controller as the RAID system. I have checked the archives and noticed that I am not the first one who has this problem. But I could not find any resource which could lead me to a solution. If any of you could give me any hints on that, I would be very grateful. I am at the point where I am considering switching to Linux because of that. On the other hand does any of you have info whether Compaq will support officially FreeBSD in the future? TIA, Cristian Nicolae To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: StrongARM support?
I'm definitely interested in both StrongARM and PPC. (and so are very many people) My understanding is that FreeBSD *wants* a FreeBSD/ARM, but lack the resources/man-power to do so. I'd prefer to see an official decision on the above by someone (hint hint -core :)) though. I don't think any "official decision" would say anything we in core haven't already said individually and many times over the years. Sure, FreeBSD wants ARM and PPC ports but currently lacks, at least to our knowledge, the man-power to lead and support such a project. You said it yourself. If some motivated individuals out there would like to change that situation, you have our full support! - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: fsck problem on large vinum volume
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jaye Mathisen writes: I have a 930GB vinum volume However, I can't fsck it, I have to always use the alternate block. newsfeed-inn2# fsck /dev/vinum/v-spool ** /dev/vinum/v-spool BAD SUPER BLOCK: VALUES IN SUPER BLOCK DISAGREE WITH THOSE IN FIRST ALTERNATE /dev/vinum/v-spool: CANNOT FIGURE OUT FILE SYSTEM PARTITION Jaye sent me a ktrace.out for the fsck that was failing. It appears that the kernel had overshot the end of the superblock fs_csp[] array in ffs_mountfs(), since the list of pointers there extended through fs_maxcluster, fs_cpc, and fs_opostbl. This caused the mismatch between the master and alternate superblocks. The filesystem parameters were 8k/1k, and the total number of cylinder groups was 29782. fs_cssize was 29782*sizeof(struct csum) = 477184 bytes. Hence 477184/8192 = ~59 entries were being used in fs_csp, but fs_csp[] is only 31 entries long (15 on alpha). A larger block size should fix Jaye's case, but I think the correct solution is to fix the kernel so that it is not constrained by the MAXCSBUFS limit. There are a few ways to do this: - Store the fs_csp information in struct ufsmount rather than in the superblock. - Make use of the fact that the summary information is stored in one contigous region, and update the 'fs_csp' macro to find the right offset directly. I'll have a look and see which way looks neatest. Ian To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Broken-by-design USB device?
There is, I think, at least a bug in subr_bus.c that might cause this,
although, this is just a hunch. I've not been able to explain what's
happening yet.
What is happening is that device_probe_child sets the device class, and
in case of an error unsets it. But in this case attach (instead of
probe) returns an error and hence the devclass _should_ be unset for
that device (it didn't have a devclass to start with) to force it back
to its virgin state, but isn't.
If you could review his patch dfr, that would be appreciated.
This is an issue in current as well.
Jon, could you try the attached patch and tell me whether that works for
you?
Cheers,
Nick
On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, Jon Simola wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2000, Nick Hibma wrote:
The panic is definitely bad. It happens straight after failing the
attach?
Yep, but only during the kernel boot. Hot plugging the device after the system
is booted spews the same errors to the console but does not cause a panic:
uhid0: no report descriptor
device_probe_and_attach: uhid0 attach returned 6
plug the device in again, and after it has panicked (it will drop into
the debugger), type trace. That would give me a hint at where it
crashes.
Here you go. If you need anything else, please ask.
kernel: type 12 trap, code=0
Stopped at DEVICE_PROBE+0xe: cmpl0(%edx),%eax
db trace
DEVICE_PROBE(c1142d00,c1142d00,c1139100,0,0) at DEVICE_PROBE+0xe
device_probe_child(c1139100,c1142d00,c1142e00,0,c1142e30) at
device_probe_child+0xc1
device_probe_and_attach(c1142d00) at device_probe_and_attach+0x29
usbd_probe_and_attach(c1139100,c1142e00,2,3,c1142e00) at
usbd_probe_and_attach+0xef
usbd_new_device(c1139100,c113a000,1,200,2,c11390c0) at usbd_new_device+0x1dd
uhub_explore(c1139280,c1139300,c1139e80,0,c0456e64) at uhub_explore+0x1d4
usb_attach(c1139300,c0456e7c,c01afc0b,c1139300,c113a000) at usb_attach+0xf1
DEVICE_ATTACH(c1139300,c113a000,c1139e80,0,c0456ea0) at DEVICE_ATTACH+0x2e
device_probe_and_attach(c1139300) at device_probe_and_attach+0x4f
uhci_pci_attach(c1139e80,c0456ec4,c01afc0b,c1139e80,c1139e80) at
uhci_pci_attach+0x33f
DEVICE_ATTACH(c1139e80,c1139e80,c1136400,0,c0456ed4) at DEVICE_ATTACH+0x2e
device_probe_and_attach(c1139e80) at device_probe_and_attach+0x4f
bus_generic_attach(c1136380,c0456ef8,c01afc0b,c1136380,c1136380) at
bus_generic_attach+0x16
DEVICE_ATTACH(c1136380,c1136380,c1136580,0,c0456f08) at DEVICE_ATTACH+0x2e
device_probe_and_attach(c1136380) at device_probe_and_attach+0x4f
bus_generic_attach(c1136400,c0456f2c,c01afc0b,c1136400,c1136400) at
bus_generic_attach+0x16
DEVICE_ATTACH(c1136400,c1136400,c0e25800,0,c0456f3c) at DEVICE_ATTACH+0x2e
device_probe_and_attach(c1136400) at device_probe_and_attach+0x4f
bus_generic_attach(c1136580,c1136580,c0456f58,c012740e,c1136580) at
bus_generic_attach+0x16
nexus_attach(c1136580,c0456f70,c01afc0b,c1136580,c1136580) at nexus_attach+0xd
DEVICE_ATTACH(c1136580,c1136580,c039a710,45b000,c0456f80) at
DEVICE_ATTACH+0x2e
device_probe_and_attach(c1136580) at device_probe_and_attach+0x4f
root_bus_configure(c0e25800,c036d38c,0) at root_bus_configure+0x16
configure(0,454c00,45b000,0,c0126df4) at configure+0x33
mi_startup(c0456fb4,b0206,ffe,45b000,c01b42f9) at mi_startup+0x70
begin() at begin+0x4b
The controller probably requires some work because a fake report
descriptor is needed to make it possible for the uhid driver to talk to
it. It does not provide any information on where the information for the
buttons and axes is stored in the descriptor returned on the interrupt
pipe.
---
Jon Simola [EMAIL PROTECTED] | "In the near future - corporate networks
Systems Administrator | reach out to the stars, electrons and light
ABC Communications | flow throughout the universe." -- GITS
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
--
Qube Software, Ltd. Private:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.qubesoft.com/ http://www.etla.net/~n_hibma/
Index: subr_bus.c
===
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/kern/subr_bus.c,v
retrieving revision 1.54.2.7
diff -u -r1.54.2.7 subr_bus.c
--- subr_bus.c 2000/08/03 06:36:38 1.54.2.7
+++ subr_bus.c 2001/01/07 13:51:15
@@ -1140,6 +1140,7 @@
{
device_t bus = dev-parent;
int error = 0;
+int hasclass = (dev-devclass != 0);
if (dev-state = DS_ALIVE)
return 0;
@@ -1155,6 +1156,9 @@
else {
printf("device_probe_and_attach: %s%d attach returned %d\n",
dev-driver-name, dev-unit, error);
+ /* Unset the class that was set in device_probe_child */
+ if (!hasclass)
+
Re: KVM switch vs. FreeBSD psm driver
I've got a Belkin OmniView Pro 8-Port KVM switch which thinks it's much smarter than it really is. I've had so many problems with this product that I dumped it for an Apex Outlook. I couldn't be happier. Since I donated the Belkin to another group, I've heard that they were able to send it in to be fixed. There was some manufacturing defect on early boxes that accounted for part of my problem. Since the signal quality through the switch was so poor anyway, I don't regret going to the Apex. -- Justin To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: KVM switch vs. FreeBSD psm driver (Solved!)
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Kazutaka YOKOTA wrote: I guess your KVM switch won't let the kernel talk to the keyboard, if the switch wasn't pointed to the FreeBSD box. Remove the flags 0x1 from atkbd in your kernel config file. This flag makes atkbd fail, if it doesn't detect a keyboard. Without the flag, atkbd will install regardless of the absence of the keyboard. In RELENG_2 and RELENG_3, this flag wasn't specified to atkbd by default. In RELENG_4, the flag was added to GENERIC so that syscons will use a USB keyboard, if any, when there is no AT keyboard. So, question: is there a reason why we can't enable both the USB keyboard and a native PS/2 keyboard with syscons? It seems that I frequently find myself in a position where I'd like to plug in a keyboard, or switch KVM choices to a machine, and discover myself with no access to the hardware console, and I know at least one person who uses FreeBSD in production and finds this to be a serious impediment (as it requires the system to be rebooted to regain console access, and when you have 8 machines per KVM, and you boot them all, switching back and forth to catch each probe is effectively impossible). Presumably our syscons is intended to select on source of I/O and use it, but it might be worth considering a change here. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Project [EMAIL PROTECTED] NAI Labs, Safeport Network Services To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: umodem and manual
The change to MAKEDEV will be committed. Thanks! Nick KE: I try testing 3com USB modem, but don't know, how connect to him ? KE: Maybe i can get some help about it ? I found problem (MAKEDEV create umodem0 with rw--- permissions, change it to 660) When Zyxel Omni USB modems be supported in FreeBSD kernel ? -- Best Regards ZHECKA-RIPN To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message -- Qube Software, Ltd. Private: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.qubesoft.com/ http://www.etla.net/~n_hibma/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: umodem and manual
I have no Zyxel modem, nor do I have any specs for what the device. So you might be better off asking on the usb-bsd mailing list: USB BSD list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nick On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Kaltashkin Eugene wrote: KE: I try testing 3com USB modem, but don't know, how connect to him ? KE: Maybe i can get some help about it ? I found problem (MAKEDEV create umodem0 with rw--- permissions, change it to 660) When Zyxel Omni USB modems be supported in FreeBSD kernel ? -- Best Regards ZHECKA-RIPN To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message -- Qube Software, Ltd. Private: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.qubesoft.com/ http://www.etla.net/~n_hibma/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: ONTOPIC - FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT - Not a bunch of licence Jihad crap
Claiming that software isn't "free" because it's not valuable is redefining the word "free" to mean something that has no cost, yet has value. free (fr) adj. Costing nothing; gratuitous: Yeah, and 'gay' means 'joyful'. You're saying the most common definition of "free" isn't no cost ? software, and that's a pretty damned closed minded point of view. I've written hundreds of DOS and Windows applications, which are FREE, although I didn't include the source code with them. Your massive generalization that So they are 'free' to modify, 'free' to distribute, 'free' to look into? Maybe I'm missing something here, but despite not being an English major, I seem to recognize the word 'free' in 'freedom'. What does a programmer gain from mislabeling his products? Freeware != free software, not just because 'free' is more than just 'free beer'. Mislabeling products ? Who the hell are you to decide what the term free software means ? If someone says, free beer, free bread, free hats, or free software, they mean the item is *free*. You can't have beer that's "more free". There's already a word for the kind of "free" software you people are talking about. Open source. you can't start redefining words like "free" to push your rabid open source agenda. The people of the past who contributed their software to the scene in the form of public domain, freeware, and shareware were writing code in the same spirit as those of us who write open source code today. So why No. While (with the exception of 'Shareware' to a certain point), Freeware is a gift, 'free software' is more than that. It is a 'call to participate', to 'evaluate', to learn. One cannot learn much from closed source, no matter how much the author charges for its use. Oh, so now the word free means the following: 'no cost' 'has value' 'call to participate' 'call to evaluate' 'call to learn' 'open source'. That's quite alot of meaning you're putting in that word. Don't we already have a term to describe such software rather than such an ambigous term as "free software" ? Open source. 'Free', for me and for a lot of people out there, means my freedom to extend my horizon by looking inside the program. My freedom to enhance and contribute, my freedom to borrow and my freedom to give. This is freedom, this is what 'free software' is all about. So you're going to annex those words and demand that everyone accept your meaning of the words, rather than using the preexisting term, open source. I guess this is a thread that should not be here and I apologize for adding my $0.02 to it, even though I know it's wrong, but I am one of these 'open source jihad bullshit assholes' and I don't like it if someone belittles the efforts of my fellow coders out there. Who's belittling who ? You're saying my free software can't be called free software because it's not open source. I've been writing free software for 11 fucking years, so don't tell me my software is not free software, just because it's not open source software. Get your terms straight and take your open source jihad elsewhere. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: ONTOPIC - FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT - Not a bunch of licence Jihad crap
[ The dict command is your friend ] 1. Exempt from subjection to the will of others; not under restraint, control, or compulsion; able to follow one's own impulses, desires, or inclinations; determining one's own course of action; not dependent; at liberty. 2. Not under an arbitrary or despotic government; subject only to fixed laws regularly and fairly administered, and defended by them from encroachments upon natural or acquired rights; enjoying political liberty. What do you think the average person would interpret "free software" as ? Software that's not opressed, or software that has no cost ? Give me a break. We already have a term for software that just costs no money: "freeware". This is _NOT_ free software. Shareware is not free software. GPLed, BSDed, X11ed, public domain, APSLed (ad infinitum) code is free software, the kind that is not often written for Windows. I would agree with this statement fully in the case of BSD and X11. The other cases do not fulfill the definition of "free." GPL is not free, although it approaches it. GPL, APSL, etc. are subject to the will of the authors. You're idioticly redefining the term "free" to be software with source code and restrictions, rather than no source code and no restrictions. You can't define the language. Free doesn't have a damned thing to do with your value judgements on what's useful, what's "no-value", whether or not it includes source, and whether or not it travels under the restrictions of your "free" licence. You're saying that the only "free" software is open-source software, and that's a pretty damned closed minded point of view. I've I'm afraid you are the victim of a "pretty damned closed minded point of view." "Free" binaries are under the restraint, control, and compulsion of the author. the user is unable to determine the course of action. If I cannot freely change the function of a program, it is not "free". If I must perform other actions as a result of my modifications, it is not "free." I am being compelled to perform. This is not "free." Oh, but other "free" (open source) software has no restraints, controls, or compulsions right ? Then what's the point of having the licence ? If I may repeat what you just said again: If I must perform other actions as a result of my modifications, it is not "free." I am being compelled to perform. This is not "free." a.. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. b.. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. Those sure seem to be compulsions. They are small and simple, but they are compulsions. So even BSD licenced software is not truly "free software" by your foolish definitions. X11 and this permission notice appear in all copies of the Software and that both the above copyright notice(s) and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation X11 has the same restrictions. Although including the licence in future copies is no big thing, it's still a restriction, and by your own words: "If I must perform other actions as a result of my modifications, it is not 'free'". Now lets hear you rephrase your words to try to become less ambigous about the definition of "free" and how it interacts with the restrictions of the BSD and/or X11 licences. Maybe you can tell us how they are "more free". That's always fun, to listen to people rant about levels of "freeness". To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: fsck problem on large vinum volume
[moved to -fs]
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ian Dowse writes:
Jaye sent me a ktrace.out for the fsck that was failing. It appears
that the kernel had overshot the end of the superblock fs_csp[] array
in ffs_mountfs(), since the list of pointers there extended through
fs_maxcluster, fs_cpc, and fs_opostbl. This caused the mismatch between
the master and alternate superblocks.
The filesystem parameters were 8k/1k, and the total number of cylinder
groups was 29782. fs_cssize was 29782*sizeof(struct csum) = 477184
bytes. Hence 477184/8192 = ~59 entries were being used in fs_csp,
but fs_csp[] is only 31 entries long (15 on alpha).
Here is a patch which should avoid the possibility of overflowing
the fs_csp[] array. The idea is that since all summary blocks are
stored in one contiguous malloc'd region, there is no need to
have a separate pointer to the start of each block within that
region.
This is achieved by simplifying the 'fs_cs' macro from
fs_csp[(indx) (fs)-fs_csshift][(indx) ~(fs)-fs_csmask]
to
fs_csp[0][indx]
so that only the start of the malloc'd region is needed, and can always
be placed in fs_csp[0] without the risk of overflow.
I have only tested this to the extent that the kernel compiles and
runs, and only on -stable.
Any comments or suggestions?
Ian
Index: ffs/ffs_vfsops.c
===
RCS file: /home/iedowse/CVS/src/sys/ufs/ffs/ffs_vfsops.c,v
retrieving revision 1.134
diff -u -r1.134 ffs_vfsops.c
--- ffs/ffs_vfsops.c2000/12/13 10:03:52 1.134
+++ ffs/ffs_vfsops.c2001/01/07 19:04:06
@@ -365,7 +365,7 @@
{
register struct vnode *vp, *nvp, *devvp;
struct inode *ip;
- struct csum *space;
+ caddr_t space;
struct buf *bp;
struct fs *fs, *newfs;
struct partinfo dpart;
@@ -432,7 +432,7 @@
* Step 3: re-read summary information from disk.
*/
blks = howmany(fs-fs_cssize, fs-fs_fsize);
- space = fs-fs_csp[0];
+ space = (caddr_t)fs-fs_csp[0];
for (i = 0; i blks; i += fs-fs_frag) {
size = fs-fs_bsize;
if (i + fs-fs_frag blks)
@@ -441,7 +441,8 @@
NOCRED, bp);
if (error)
return (error);
- bcopy(bp-b_data, fs-fs_csp[fragstoblks(fs, i)], (u_int)size);
+ bcopy(bp-b_data, space, (u_int)size);
+ space += size;
brelse(bp);
}
/*
@@ -513,7 +514,7 @@
register struct fs *fs;
dev_t dev;
struct partinfo dpart;
- caddr_t base, space;
+ caddr_t space;
int error, i, blks, size, ronly;
int32_t *lp;
struct ucred *cred;
@@ -623,18 +624,18 @@
blks = howmany(size, fs-fs_fsize);
if (fs-fs_contigsumsize 0)
size += fs-fs_ncg * sizeof(int32_t);
- base = space = malloc((u_long)size, M_UFSMNT, M_WAITOK);
+ space = malloc((u_long)size, M_UFSMNT, M_WAITOK);
+ fs-fs_csp[0] = (struct csum *)space;
for (i = 0; i blks; i += fs-fs_frag) {
size = fs-fs_bsize;
if (i + fs-fs_frag blks)
size = (blks - i) * fs-fs_fsize;
if ((error = bread(devvp, fsbtodb(fs, fs-fs_csaddr + i), size,
cred, bp)) != 0) {
- free(base, M_UFSMNT);
+ free(fs-fs_csp[0], M_UFSMNT);
goto out;
}
bcopy(bp-b_data, space, (u_int)size);
- fs-fs_csp[fragstoblks(fs, i)] = (struct csum *)space;
space += size;
brelse(bp);
bp = NULL;
@@ -691,7 +692,7 @@
if (ronly == 0) {
if ((fs-fs_flags FS_DOSOFTDEP)
(error = softdep_mount(devvp, mp, fs, cred)) != 0) {
- free(base, M_UFSMNT);
+ free(fs-fs_csp[0], M_UFSMNT);
goto out;
}
if (fs-fs_snapinum[0] != 0)
Index: ffs/fs.h
===
RCS file: /home/iedowse/CVS/src/sys/ufs/ffs/fs.h,v
retrieving revision 1.16
diff -u -r1.16 fs.h
--- ffs/fs.h2000/07/04 04:55:48 1.16
+++ ffs/fs.h2001/01/07 18:55:44
@@ -108,10 +108,10 @@
/*
* The limit on the amount of summary information per file system
* is defined by MAXCSBUFS. It is currently parameterized for a
- * size of 128 bytes (2 million cylinder groups on machines with
- * 32-bit pointers, and 1 million on 64-bit machines). One pointer
- * is taken away to point to an array of cluster sizes that is
- * computed as cylinder groups are inspected.
+ * size of 128 bytes. One pointer is taken away to point to an array
+ * of cluster sizes that is computed as cylinder groups are inspected.
+ *
+ * Currently, the ffs code uses only the first entry.
*/
#define
Re: SCSI DAT tape detection on Compaq DL380
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 14:35:53 +0100, cristian nicolae wrote: Dear all, I have a Compaq DL380 with an integrated Compaq Smart Array Controller. I have succesfully managed to install the FreeBSD 4.2-20010104 and everything is fine but the DAT drive which is not detected. The DAT is connected to the same Controller as the RAID system. I have checked the archives and noticed that I am not the first one who has this problem. But I could not find any resource which could lead me to a solution. If any of you could give me any hints on that, I would be very grateful. I am at the point where I am considering switching to Linux because of that. I don't think the ida driver in FreeBSD has SCSI passthrough capability. That is to say that it doesn't hook into the CAM subsystem so that generic tape, CDROM, changer, etc., devices will work. I don't know whether or not the hardware itself has passthrough capability; someone more familiar with those controllers will have to comment on that. If the hardware can't handle it, switching to Linux won't help you. If it does handle it, switching will only help if the Linux driver supports that functionality. On the other hand does any of you have info whether Compaq will support officially FreeBSD in the future? I don't know. They offer FreeBSD in their test drive program, though: http://www.testdrive.compaq.com Ken -- Kenneth Merry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: ONTOPIC - FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT - Not a bunch of licence Jiha...
In a message dated 1/7/2001 11:27:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [ The dict command is your friend ] 1. Exempt from subjection to the will of others; not under restraint, control, or compulsion; able to follow one's own impulses, desires, or inclinations; determining one's own course of action; not dependent; at liberty. 2. Not under an arbitrary or despotic government; subject only to fixed laws regularly and fairly administered, and defended by them from encroachments upon natural or acquired rights; enjoying political liberty. What do you think the average person would interpret "free software" as ? Software that's not opressed, or software that has no cost ? Give me a break. We already have a term for software that just costs no money: "freeware". This is _NOT_ free software. Shareware is not free software. GPLed, BSDed, X11ed, public domain, APSLed (ad infinitum) code is free software, the kind that is not often written for Windows. I would agree with this statement fully in the case of BSD and X11. The other cases do not fulfill the definition of "free." GPL is not free, although it approaches it. GPL, APSL, etc. are subject to the will of the authors. You're idioticly redefining the term "free" to be software with source code and restrictions, rather than no source code and no restrictions. You can't define the language. Free doesn't have a damned thing to do with your value judgements on what's useful, what's "no-value", whether or not it includes source, and whether or not it travels under the restrictions of your "free" licence. You're saying that the only "free" software is open-source software, and that's a pretty damned closed minded point of view. I've I'm afraid you are the victim of a "pretty damned closed minded point of view." "Free" binaries are under the restraint, control, and compulsion of the author. the user is unable to determine the course of action. If I cannot freely change the function of a program, it is not "free". If I must perform other actions as a result of my modifications, it is not "free." I am being compelled to perform. This is not "free." Oh, but other "free" (open source) software has no restraints, controls, or compulsions right ? Then what's the point of having the licence ? If I may repeat what you just said again: If I must perform other actions as a result of my modifications, it is not "free." I am being compelled to perform. This is not "free." a.. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. b.. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. Those sure seem to be compulsions. They are small and simple, but they are compulsions. So even BSD licenced software is not truly "free software" by your foolish definitions. X11 and this permission notice appear in all copies of the Software and that both the above copyright notice(s) and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation X11 has the same restrictions. Although including the licence in future copies is no big thing, it's still a restriction, and by your own words: "If I must perform other actions as a result of my modifications, it is not 'free'". Now lets hear you rephrase your words to try to become less ambigous about the definition of "free" and how it interacts with the restrictions of the BSD and/or X11 licences. Maybe you can tell us how they are "more free". That's always fun, to listen to people rant about levels of "freeness". I dunno who has it, but here's a cool little program called MultiRes... it's like QuickRes, but it's for Windows 2000, and supports refresh rates and shit. Oh, and Stox and Feldman need to, like, sit on a tack or something... multires.exe
Re: [Question] CVS and CVS@freebsd
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Note: I've BCC'd to arch to get advanced implemention suggestions] Hey everyone OpenCountry.org has asked me to setup a CVS repository for them. Their business plan includes packageing, wrapping and selling LINUX open source software. They want to build an infrastructure to support multiple unrelated independent developers. It will include the usual web, mailing list stuff, but they also want CVS, bug reporting and integrationg with the message board (Twiki). I'm considering using Perl, Mysql, Cvsweb and Mason or PHP. Can anyone give me suggestion on implementing this? Specifically I'd like to know about tools available, concepts that would aid developers and any suggestions out-of-scope that would aid developers. Bugzilla. The only thing not to like about it is the insanse insistence on MySQL; it would be ever so much better with PostgreSQL (says Wes the Berkeley license bigot). -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://softweyr.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: ONTOPIC - FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT - Not a bunch of licence Jihad crap
Jeremiah Gowdy wrote: Claiming that software isn't "free" because it's not valuable is redefining the word "free" to mean something that has no cost, yet has value. free (fr) adj. Costing nothing; gratuitous: Yeah, and 'gay' means 'joyful'. You're saying the most common definition of "free" isn't no cost ? That would depend on whether you're talking to Libertarians or KMart Shoppers. Can we please take this off the hackers list? -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://softweyr.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: ONTOPIC - FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT - Not a bunch oflicence Jihad crap
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote: You're saying the most common definition of "free" isn't no cost ? I'm a free man, not a commercial sample! Rik -- Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose... http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Xbox
Well, this is going to seem like a rather strange question. I understand that Xbox is simply IA-32, however I have heard that the Xbox has a special ROM that boots Windows CE, to ensure that people do not purchase the Xbox for the sole reason of running FreeBSD or any other operating system on it. Does anyone know enough about Xbox internals to verify that FreeBSD will or will not be able to run on Xbox without any type of hardware modification? thanks, mohan To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: freebsd-hackers-digest V5 #1
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 05:07:06 -0800 (PST) From: Gordon Tetlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: silence as an answer? (was: how to test out cron.c changes?) Hello there! On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Doug Barton wrote: Gerhard Sittig wrote: [snip] Consider the following. We are in the spring and DST is "springing forward" at 2am. We have a job scheduled at 2:15 that takes one hour to run. There is another job scheduled at 3:20 that ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY cannot run unless the first job finishes. Aside from the fact that this is bad design, how should cron handle this situation? I think this is a really horrible example. It is impossible for FreeBSD to expect to catch bad design on a local administrator's part. The admin should implement some sort of semaphore (a file in /tmp) or just append the dependent job to the first job. We can't insulate stupidity, at least we shouldn't, otherwise FreeBSD is going to start looking more like Windows. I agree on that. Cron can't know the just how a program runs. Taking the above example and shifting the first program back to prior to 2AM - and that it take over an hour to run - what happens when a the clock springs forward and the hour is missing. The job wasn't scheduled in the 2AM black hole area. Programmers do have to consider DST. That's what we get paid for, right. Just like getting things like Y2K straight :-0 And the last Y2K bugs occured this past week. In Norway [as I recall] on train schedules, because 12/31/2000 hadn't been tested and this week in the US when all the 7/11 stores POS system though 01/01/01 was 1901, and that all the credit cards were invalid. I think that cron is broken because it doesn't handle DST shift properly. Just my opinion though, and we seem to get plenty of those around here =) ISTR that at least in the last couple of years some of the OSes handle the DST shift properly. eg - not running a job twice for example. I've not had a problem on BSD - but then I don't have anything scheduled in those hours except things that run every hour. -- Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Xbox
At 17:37 7/01/01 -0500, you wrote: Does anyone know enough about Xbox internals to verify that FreeBSD will or will not be able to run on Xbox without any type of hardware modification? No, but if you'd like to be into that kind of thing I understand the NetBSD/Dreamcast port is coming along quite nicely. mohan Dave To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: StrongARM support? (was also: Group for porting to other proccessor families)
On Monday, 8 January 2001 at 0:22:01 +0800, Kathy Quinlan wrote: Hi all Is their a group of FreeBSD Enthusiasts that are working on porting free to embedded controllers that are not x86 I am in the process of developing a security / access / building management system, and am looking at using free on all my outlying units. I am not interested in using pc104 etc but using processors like the atmel thumb processor, this is a risc based uC capable of handling 64Mb of flash ram for program and working ram. why do I want an OS for an industrial app, simple some units may be standalone and need dialling into, building units will probably be TCP/IP. If I understand correctly, this is an ARM architecture. Almost the same time you wrote that, this message was sent to -hackers: On Sunday, 7 January 2001 at 6:20:26 -0800, Jordan Hubbard wrote: [missing attribution to Michael C. Wu] I'm definitely interested in both StrongARM and PPC. (and so are very many people) My understanding is that FreeBSD *wants* a FreeBSD/ARM, but lack the resources/man-power to do so. I'd prefer to see an official decision on the above by someone (hint hint -core :)) though. I don't think any "official decision" would say anything we in core haven't already said individually and many times over the years. Sure, FreeBSD wants ARM and PPC ports but currently lacks, at least to our knowledge, the man-power to lead and support such a project. You said it yourself. If some motivated individuals out there would like to change that situation, you have our full support! Porting to ARM isn't going to be trivial, but the obvious first step is to get interested people together. Note that we've had a SPARC porting effort languishing out there for years now. If ARM is to do better, it will need significant support. Jordan's response above was made without his -core hat on. If people want a response from -core (which I suspect will probably be very similar), they should send mail to -core asking for it. Greg -- Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP public key See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: KVM switch vs. FreeBSD psm driver (Solved!)
So, question: is there a reason why we can't enable both the USB keyboard and a native PS/2 keyboard with syscons? It seems that I frequently find myself in a position where I'd like to plug in a keyboard, or switch KVM choices to a machine, and discover myself with no access to the hardware console, and I know at least one person who uses FreeBSD in production and finds this to be a serious impediment (as it requires the system to be rebooted to regain console access, and when you have 8 machines per KVM, and you boot them all, switching back and forth to catch each probe is effectively impossible). Presumably our syscons is intended to select on source of I/O and use it, but it might be worth considering a change here. This IS already possible in RELENG_4 and -CURRENT. Add the flags 0x100 to syscons (this is default in both RELENG_4 and CURRENT). Then syscons will look for a keyboard if it started without one at boot time. I don't know if this mechanism works well with KVMs. I never tested with KVMs, because I don't use one. But, it works wonderfully with the USB keyboard. As for unplugging/plugging the AT keyboard... Well, I don't recommend that. That will likely fly your keyboard controller... But, still syscons should be able to use the AT keyboard which is plugged after boot, so long as atkbd is forced to install at boot time. Kazu To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
kthread_exit zombification
Hi, Gang.
In 4.1.1, I have a pretty simple need for a kernel thread or two, but
I'm having problems with kthread_exit(). The problem is that the thread
goes zombie after I kthread_exit in it, but it never gets reaped. Since
I'm doing this during a MOD_UNLOAD phase, if I happen to do a `ps -ax'
after the module has been unmapped, a panic results becuase it's trying
to get the lwp name and wchan string from what is now unmapped memory.
But that's a secondary problem; the primary one is that I am missing
whatever it takes to get a ticket for the resulting kernel thread to go
to Byte Heaven.
After a couple of load/unload cycles, I see:
$ ps -alx | grep mem
0 357 0 2 0 0 00 - ZL??0:00.00 (udi_memd)
0 360 0 2 0 0 00 - ZL??0:00.00 (udi_memd)
0 920 0 2 0 0 00 - ZL??0:00.00 (udi_memd)
0 954 0 0 0 0 00 udi_os SL??0:00.00 (udi_memd)
The creation is pretty simple:
if (kthread_create(my_daemon, NULL,
my_thread, "mydaemon")) {
printf("kthread_create failed!\n");
}
Once the interesting part is stripped away, the daemon itself is texbook:
_udi_alloc_daemon(void *arg)
{
while (!kill_daemon_req) {
/* do work */
}
wakeup(_udi_kill_daemon);
kthread_exit(0);
}
And the code that does the teardown looks like:
case MOD_UNLOAD:
kill_daemon_req = TRUE;
/* poke the daemon to awaken it's 'work' loop */
...
tsleep(_udi_kill_daemon, PZERO, "udiallocdeath", 0);
I can see the interlocks happening with the tsleep/wakeup, so I know
we're not unloading prematurely. There aren't many users of the kthread
facilities in the kernel and since they don't seem to be in modules, the
teardown case might have been skipped.
What am I missing?
Thanx,
RJL
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Xbox
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mohan Khurana writes: : Well, this is going to seem like a rather strange question. I understand : that Xbox is simply IA-32, however I have heard that the Xbox has a : special ROM that boots Windows CE, to ensure that people do not purchase : the Xbox for the sole reason of running FreeBSD or any other operating : system on it. Does anyone know enough about Xbox internals to verify that : FreeBSD will or will not be able to run on Xbox without any type of : hardware modification? I know that NetBSD/hpcmips uses Windows CE as a boot loader. It will be harder on the Xbox, since Windows CE 3.0 breaks many of the interfaces that pbsdboot.exe used. Don't know if that was on purpose, or if it was accidental to cleaning up the horrible protection mechanisms that were in place before. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: ONTOPIC - FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT - Not a bunch of licence Jiha...
Hi Could you people please take this flamewar off our lists? Thanks! M --part1_f8.65bd20b.278a2f74_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/7/2001 11:27:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [ The dict command is your friend ] 1. Exempt from subjection to the will of others; not under restraint, control, or compulsion; able to follow one's own impulses, desires, or inclinations; determining one's own course of action; not dependent; at liberty. 2. Not under an arbitrary or despotic government; subject only to fixed laws regularly and fairly administered, and defended by them from encroachments upon natural or acquired rights; enjoying political liberty. What do you think the average person would interpret "free software" as ? Software that's not opressed, or software that has no cost ? Give me a break. We already have a term for software that just costs no money: "freeware". This is _NOT_ free software. Shareware is not free software. GPLed , BSDed, X11ed, public domain, APSLed (ad infinitum) code is free software, the kind that is not often written for Windows. I would agree with this statement fully in the case of BSD and X11. The other cases do not fulfill the definition of "free." GPL is not free, although it approaches it. GPL, APSL, etc. are subject to the will of th e authors. You're idioticly redefining the term "free" to be software with source code and restrictions, rather than no source code and no restrictions. You can't define the language. Free doesn't have a damned thing to do with your value judgements on what's useful, what's "no-value", whether or not it includes source, and whether or not it travels under the restrictions of your "free" licence. You're saying that the only "free" software is open-source software, and that's a pretty damned closed minded point of view. I'v e I'm afraid you are the victim of a "pretty damned closed minded point of view." "Free" binaries are under the restraint, control, and compulsion of the author. the user is unable to determine the course of action. If I cannot freely change the function of a program, it is not "free". If I must perform other actions as a result of my modifications, it is not "free." I am being compelled to perform. This is not "free." Oh, but other "free" (open source) software has no restraints, controls, o r compulsions right ? Then what's the point of having the licence ? If I may repeat what you just said again: If I must perform other actions as a result of my modifications, it is not "free." I am being compelled to perform. This is not "free." a.. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. b.. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. Those sure seem to be compulsions. They are small and simple, but they ar e compulsions. So even BSD licenced software is not truly "free software" b y your foolish definitions. X11 and this permission notice appear in all copies of the Software and that both the above copyright notice(s) and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation X11 has the same restrictions. Although including the licence in future copies is no big thing, it's still a restriction, and by your own words: "If I must perform other actions as a result of my modifications, it is not 'free'". Now lets hear you rephrase your words to try to become less ambigous about the definition of "free" and how it interacts with the restrictions of the BSD and/or X11 licences. Maybe you can tell us how they are "more free". That's always fun, to listen to people rant about levels of "freeness". I dunno who has it, but here's a cool little program called MultiRes... it's like QuickRes, but it's for Windows 2000, and supports refresh rates and shit. Oh, and Stox and Feldman need to, like, sit on a tack or something... --part1_f8.65bd20b.278a2f74_boundary Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="multires.exe" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="multires.exe" TVpQAAIEAA8A//8AALgAQAAa AAEAALoQAA4ftAnNIbgBTM0hkJBUaGlzIHByb2dyYW0gbXVzdCBiZSBydW4gdW5k ZXIgV2luMzINCiQ3
Re: Ideas? (fwd)
--Roman Shterenzon, UNIX System Administrator and Consultant [ Xpert UNIX Systems Ltd., Herzlia, Israel. Tel: +972-9-9522361 ] -- Forwarded message -- Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 18:36:05 -0800 Subject: Re: Ideas? * Roman Shterenzon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010107 10:24] wrote: Hi, Could you please take a look at : http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=24019 It's my friend's PR. Can you give me some hints on how can I debug this issue. I'm completely puzzled here. It panics on "goto out" with page fault. What I understand from it is that the block at the address it tries to jmp to isn't present. But it's kernel code which is never swapped out. Does it mean that the address was rewritten? If it's so, what can rewrite this address? Ideas? Thank you in advance, P.S. Can it be due to faulty hardware? To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
