[head tinderbox] failure on i386/i386

TB --- 2011-04-21 22:40:00 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-04-21 22:40:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for i386/i386 TB --- 2011-04-21 22:40:00 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-04-21 22:40:12 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-04-21 22:40:12 - /usr/bin/c

[head tinderbox] failure on i386/pc98

TB --- 2011-04-21 22:40:00 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-04-21 22:40:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for i386/pc98 TB --- 2011-04-21 22:40:00 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-04-21 22:40:12 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-04-21 22:40:12 - /usr/bin/c

Re: Heads up - please recompile ifconfig if you're using wireless

Hm, I'll revert this change for now. Sorry! Adrian On 21 April 2011 23:40, Sevan / Venture37 wrote: > On 21 April 2011 06:19, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > It's possible, but none of the current drivers in -head implement MIMO > and > > the data wasn't actually filled out in net80211, so it's hig

[head tinderbox] failure on powerpc64/powerpc

TB --- 2011-04-21 20:54:01 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-04-21 20:54:01 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for powerpc64/powerpc TB --- 2011-04-21 20:54:01 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-04-21 20:54:13 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-04-21 20:54:13 - /u

Re: Devices numbering [Was Re: Switch from legacy ata(4) to CAM-based ATA]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: Hi, On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote: Although this may not be a list of fixable issues, here are some observations (in part with the new geom raid infrastructure): 1. Channels are no longer fixed of course because ata uses cam

[head tinderbox] failure on sparc64/sun4v

TB --- 2011-04-21 21:20:20 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-04-21 21:20:20 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for sparc64/sun4v TB --- 2011-04-21 21:20:20 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-04-21 21:20:29 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-04-21 21:20:29 - /usr/b

[head tinderbox] failure on powerpc/powerpc

TB --- 2011-04-21 20:34:10 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-04-21 20:34:10 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for powerpc/powerpc TB --- 2011-04-21 20:34:10 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-04-21 20:34:23 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-04-21 20:34:23 - /usr

Re: Devices numbering [Was Re: Switch from legacy ata(4) to CAM-based ATA]

On Apr 21, 2011, at 10:48 AM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote: >> Although this may not be a list of fixable issues, here are some >> observations (in part with the new geom raid infrastructure): >> 1. Channels are no longer fixed of course

Re: Switch from legacy ata(4) to CAM-based ATA

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 01:26:25PM +0300, Alexander Motin wrote: > Marius Strobl wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:57:47PM +0300, Alexander Motin wrote: > >> With 9.0 release approaching quickly, I believe it the best time now to > >> manage migration from legacy ata(4) ATA to the new CAM-based

[head tinderbox] failure on sparc64/sparc64

TB --- 2011-04-21 20:55:18 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-04-21 20:55:18 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for sparc64/sparc64 TB --- 2011-04-21 20:55:18 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-04-21 20:55:27 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-04-21 20:55:27 - /usr

Re: Switch from legacy ata(4) to CAM-based ATA

> Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 01:37:14 -0400 > From: Arnaud Lacombe > Sender: owner-freebsd-curr...@freebsd.org > > Hi, > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Warren Block wro

[head tinderbox] failure on amd64/amd64

TB --- 2011-04-21 18:20:00 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-04-21 18:20:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for amd64/amd64 TB --- 2011-04-21 18:20:00 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-04-21 18:20:28 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-04-21 18:20:28 - /usr/bin

[head tinderbox] failure on ia64/ia64

TB --- 2011-04-21 19:12:22 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-04-21 19:12:22 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for ia64/ia64 TB --- 2011-04-21 19:12:22 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-04-21 19:12:33 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-04-21 19:12:33 - /usr/bin/c

[head tinderbox] failure on i386/i386

TB --- 2011-04-21 18:20:00 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-04-21 18:20:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for i386/i386 TB --- 2011-04-21 18:20:00 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-04-21 18:20:28 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-04-21 18:20:28 - /usr/bin/c

[head tinderbox] failure on i386/pc98

TB --- 2011-04-21 18:20:00 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-04-21 18:20:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for i386/pc98 TB --- 2011-04-21 18:20:00 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-04-21 18:20:18 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-04-21 18:20:18 - /usr/bin/c

Build error while kernel building: g_eli.o: In function `g_eli_destroy':

Since today's "svn update' of FreeBSD 9.0-CUR I receive this error when building the kernel: cc -c -O2 -frename-registers -pipe -fno-strict-aliasing -march=native -std=c99 -Wall -Wredundant-decls -Wnested-externs -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Winline -Wcast-qual -

Re: Switch from legacy ata(4) to CAM-based ATA

Hello, Warren. You wrote 21 апреля 2011 г., 3:01:59: > Not sure I understand the question. I have a little article called > FreeBSD Labeled Filesystems: > http://www.wonkity.com/~wblock/docs/html/labels.html This article says nothing about what should I do when gmirror tastes after glabel (and

[head tinderbox] failure on powerpc/powerpc

TB --- 2011-04-21 16:22:21 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-04-21 16:22:21 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for powerpc/powerpc TB --- 2011-04-21 16:22:21 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-04-21 16:22:34 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-04-21 16:22:34 - /usr

Re: Switch from legacy ata(4) to CAM-based ATA

Hello, Ted. You wrote 21 апреля 2011 г., 20:18:15: >> When I first saw this on linux my gut reaction was "e, >> different." But now that I've worked with it a bit, I really like >> it. Doing this by default in 9.0 would be a really useful step >> forward, and would allow greater innovation dow

[head tinderbox] failure on powerpc64/powerpc

TB --- 2011-04-21 16:27:01 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-04-21 16:27:01 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for powerpc64/powerpc TB --- 2011-04-21 16:27:01 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-04-21 16:27:21 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-04-21 16:27:21 - /u

[head tinderbox] failure on sparc64/sun4v

TB --- 2011-04-21 16:49:51 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-04-21 16:49:51 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for sparc64/sun4v TB --- 2011-04-21 16:49:51 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-04-21 16:50:01 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-04-21 16:50:01 - /usr/b

[head tinderbox] failure on sparc64/sparc64

TB --- 2011-04-21 16:34:20 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-04-21 16:34:20 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for sparc64/sparc64 TB --- 2011-04-21 16:34:20 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-04-21 16:34:31 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-04-21 16:34:31 - /usr

Devices numbering [Was Re: Switch from legacy ata(4) to CAM-based ATA]

Hi, On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote: > Although this may not be a list of fixable issues, here are some observations > (in part with the new geom raid infrastructure): > 1. Channels are no longer fixed of course because ata uses cam now, and I > believe that device numberi

Re: Switch from legacy ata(4) to CAM-based ATA

On Apr 20, 2011, at 2:57 AM, Alexander Motin wrote: > Hi. > > With 9.0 release approaching quickly, I believe it the best time now to > manage migration from legacy ata(4) ATA to the new CAM-based one. New > ATA code present in the tree for more then a year now, used by many > people and proved

Re: Switch from legacy ata(4) to CAM-based ATA

I also think that labeling disks & partitions should be the default approach on new installations. I wonder why the new bsdinstaller does not adopt this policy yet. It is practical, easy and saves a lot of hassles when it comes to disk replacements. On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Ted Faber wrot

Re: Switch from legacy ata(4) to CAM-based ATA

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Ted Faber wrote: > I seem to recall some flakiness with mounting labelled gmirrors.  Anyone > know if that's been resolved? Purely anecdotal, but we've been using gmirror on top of glabel since FreeBSD 7.0. First on CompactFlash disks using CF-to-IDE adapters (at

Re: Switch from legacy ata(4) to CAM-based ATA

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 03:35:38PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > On 04/20/2011 15:18, Scott Long wrote: > >I agree with what Alexander is saying, but I'd like to take it a step > >further. We should all be using [...] mount-by-label > > +1 > > When I first saw this on linux my gut reaction was "e

Re: Heads up - please recompile ifconfig if you're using wireless

On 21 April 2011 06:19, Adrian Chadd wrote: > It's possible, but none of the current drivers in -head implement MIMO and > the data wasn't actually filled out in net80211, so it's highly unlikely it > was being used. The rt2860/70 driver was, attempting to compile the drive now results in rt2860.

Re: Switch from legacy ata(4) to CAM-based ATA

On 04/21/11 02:51, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: On Apr 20, 2011, at 10:18 PM, Scott Long wrote: On Apr 20, 2011, at 2:50 PM, Alexander Motin wrote: Ulrich Spörlein wrote: [...] b) FYI: labels and stacked geoms do not work well together as you can never detach providers cleanly then, which basical

Re: Switch from legacy ata(4) to CAM-based ATA

> Daniel Braniss wrote: > >> Bruce Cran wrote: > >>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:57:47 +0300 > >>> Alexander Motin wrote: > >>> > If somebody has any problems with new ATA stack, please repeat your > tests with latest HEAD code and contact me if problem is still there. > Next three weeks

Re: Switch from legacy ata(4) to CAM-based ATA

On 04/20/2011 05:57, Alexander Motin wrote: Hi. With 9.0 release approaching quickly, I believe it the best time now to manage migration from legacy ata(4) ATA to the new CAM-based one. New ATA code present in the tree for more then a year now, used by many people and proved it's superior functi

Re: Switch from legacy ata(4) to CAM-based ATA

My mistake! Everything back to normal thanks and very nice work. On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Alexander Motin wrote: > George Kontostanos wrote: > > First patch seemed to work fine. > > > > Second however, > > It was unrelated breakage related to WiFi MIMO support. Already fixed. > > -- > Al

Re: Switch from legacy ata(4) to CAM-based ATA

George Kontostanos wrote: > First patch seemed to work fine. > > Second however, It was unrelated breakage related to WiFi MIMO support. Already fixed. -- Alexander Motin ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/li

Re: Switch from legacy ata(4) to CAM-based ATA

First patch seemed to work fine. Second however, ===> mwl (all) cc -O2 -pipe -fno-strict-aliasing -Werror -D_KERNEL -DKLD_MODULE -nostdinc -DHAVE_KERNEL_OPTION_HEADERS -include /usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC/opt_global.h -I. -I@ -I@/contrib/altq -finline-limit=8000 --param inline-unit-growth=100 --

Re: Switch from legacy ata(4) to CAM-based ATA

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 04:35:58PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote: > > > On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Scott Long wrote: > >... > > > >I agree with what Alexander is saying, but I'd like to take it a step > >further. We should all be using either mount-by-label, or be working to > >introduce generic device

Re: Switch from legacy ata(4) to CAM-based ATA

Daniel Braniss wrote: >> Bruce Cran wrote: >>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:57:47 +0300 >>> Alexander Motin wrote: >>> If somebody has any problems with new ATA stack, please repeat your tests with latest HEAD code and contact me if problem is still there. Next three weeks before BSDCan I

[head tinderbox] failure on ia64/ia64

TB --- 2011-04-21 09:22:18 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-04-21 09:22:18 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for ia64/ia64 TB --- 2011-04-21 09:22:18 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-04-21 09:22:30 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-04-21 09:22:30 - /usr/bin/c

[head tinderbox] failure on amd64/amd64

TB --- 2011-04-21 08:30:00 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-04-21 08:30:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for amd64/amd64 TB --- 2011-04-21 08:30:00 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-04-21 08:30:22 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-04-21 08:30:22 - /usr/bin

Re: RFC: unionfs multiple mounts, cross mounts and recursive mounts limits and manegement feature

On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 14:49 +0900, Daichi GOTO wrote: > It is adjustable with sysctl value 'vfs.unionfs.recursive_limit' as > multiple mounts limits. The default value is 1 and it means two-layered ok. > Max value of 'vfs.unionfs.recursive_limit' is 8, it is heuristic value. > I couldn't get a sy

[head tinderbox] failure on i386/pc98

TB --- 2011-04-21 08:30:00 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-04-21 08:30:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for i386/pc98 TB --- 2011-04-21 08:30:00 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-04-21 08:30:18 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-04-21 08:30:18 - /usr/bin/c

[head tinderbox] failure on i386/i386

TB --- 2011-04-21 08:30:00 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-04-21 08:30:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for i386/i386 TB --- 2011-04-21 08:30:00 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-04-21 08:30:23 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-04-21 08:30:23 - /usr/bin/c

Re: Switch from legacy ata(4) to CAM-based ATA

Marius Strobl wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:57:47PM +0300, Alexander Motin wrote: >> With 9.0 release approaching quickly, I believe it the best time now to >> manage migration from legacy ata(4) ATA to the new CAM-based one. New >> ATA code present in the tree for more then a year now, used

[head tinderbox] failure on powerpc/powerpc

TB --- 2011-04-21 06:22:50 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-04-21 06:22:50 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for powerpc/powerpc TB --- 2011-04-21 06:22:50 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-04-21 06:23:07 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-04-21 06:23:07 - /usr

[head tinderbox] failure on powerpc64/powerpc

TB --- 2011-04-21 06:27:14 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-04-21 06:27:14 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for powerpc64/powerpc TB --- 2011-04-21 06:27:14 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-04-21 06:27:35 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-04-21 06:27:35 - /u

Re: RFC: unionfs multiple mounts, cross mounts and recursive mounts limits and manegement feature

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:03:30 +0400 Alex Zimnitsky wrote: > On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 14:49 +0900, Daichi GOTO wrote: > > > It is adjustable with sysctl value 'vfs.unionfs.recursive_limit' as > > multiple mounts limits. The default value is 1 and it means two-layered ok. > > Max value of 'vfs.unionfs.

[head tinderbox] failure on sparc64/sun4v

TB --- 2011-04-21 06:49:36 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-04-21 06:49:36 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for sparc64/sun4v TB --- 2011-04-21 06:49:36 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-04-21 06:49:45 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-04-21 06:49:45 - /usr/b

Re: Switch from legacy ata(4) to CAM-based ATA

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 07:51:56 + "Bjoern A. Zeeb" wrote: > a) we MUST HAVE a transition scheme if we cam-base ATA by default. > Something that converts things automatically to whatever? That's not > been done in more than one year. It's not acceptable to update, > reboot and not find the root

[head tinderbox] failure on sparc64/sparc64

TB --- 2011-04-21 06:34:24 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-04-21 06:34:24 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for sparc64/sparc64 TB --- 2011-04-21 06:34:24 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-04-21 06:34:37 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-04-21 06:34:37 - /usr

Re: Switch from legacy ata(4) to CAM-based ATA

On Apr 20, 2011, at 10:18 PM, Scott Long wrote: > On Apr 20, 2011, at 2:50 PM, Alexander Motin wrote: >> Ulrich Spörlein wrote: >>> Can we then please get the "ad" device prefix back? I seem to remember >>> that when they were introduced they were thought to be a temporary thing >>> ... >>> >>> U

Re: PF and NAT64

On Apr 21, 2011, at 1:09 AM, Elliot Finley wrote: > Has the NAT64 code for PF been brought into -Current yet? No. -- Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions! Stop bit received. Insert coin for new address family. ___