problem with partitions
Hello, I'm trying install 5.0 on Compaq ML350 and have this problem: I can create slice, but cannot create partitions. It responds: Cannot swap to /dev/da0s1 ...Cannot create root filesystem... Return code 1and so on... Where's the problem? With 4.3 I'm able to create partitions (with little difficulties). Thanks Ladislav Kostal To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: Lock of struct filedesc, file, pgrp, session and sigio
On Thu, 31 May 2001 13:01:56 -0700, David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: David On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 12:54:26PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote: Lock of struct filedesc, file, pgrp, session and sigio is now ready for testing. The patch is at http://people.FreeBSD.org/~tanimura/patches/fd_pgrp.diff.gz Compiled on Alpha? I think that's what he means by testing. :) I.e., he's ready for people to compile it and report problems, etc. David Committers do not need Alpha users to verify that a patch compiles, David Beast.freebsd.org can be used for that. Testing on a running system is David of course a different matter. I will test building a GENERIC kernel with COMPAT_OSF1 after I get home, in a couple of hours. David It would also be nice to get a timeline on the commit schedule for this. Test of 2 weeks should be enough, followed by commit in 15 June. -- Seigo Tanimura [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Lock of struct filedesc, file, pgrp, session and sigio
On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 09:28:57PM +0900, Seigo Tanimura wrote: David Committers do not need Alpha users to verify that a patch compiles, David Beast.freebsd.org can be used for that. Testing on a running system is David of course a different matter. I will test building a GENERIC kernel with COMPAT_OSF1 after I get home, in a couple of hours. I think you misunderstand; David was referring to testing compilation on the alpha platform. beast.freebsd.org is available for FreeBSD committers for this purpose. Kris PGP signature
Re: Lock of struct filedesc, file, pgrp, session and sigio
On Fri, 1 Jun 2001 05:44:17 -0700, Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: David Committers do not need Alpha users to verify that a patch compiles, David Beast.freebsd.org can be used for that. Testing on a running system is David of course a different matter. I will test building a GENERIC kernel with COMPAT_OSF1 after I get home, in a couple of hours. Kris I think you misunderstand; David was referring to testing compilation Kris on the alpha platform. beast.freebsd.org is available for FreeBSD Kris committers for this purpose. I meant that I cannot start testing *right now* because I have to go back from my lab to my home in a few minutes, during which I will be offline. The test is going to be on beast, of course. -- Seigo Tanimura [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: OpenBSD dirpref/softupdates code
* Jeremiah Gowdy [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010531 17:57] wrote: I have been told that the OpenBSD code that is supposed to speed up some types of file system access up to 60x, has been committed to -current on 4/30. I'm wondering if there's any idea when it will be committed to -stable? Are their any stability issues with the code? It seems stable but there were issues with old copies of fsck making the kernel panic because they filled in junk in places dirpref expected some sort of statistical info. There's also the issue of letting the change mature a bit before possibly hurting users with a new layout policy that's just recently been discovered, basically there may be unforseen issues. Personally I'd like to see snapshots and background fsck backported. :) -- -Alfred Perlstein [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Instead of asking why a piece of software is using 1970s technology, start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: gcc -pg causes 'kernel trap 12 with interrupts disabled' panic
On Thu, 31 May 2001, Bruce Evans wrote: On Wed, 30 May 2001, David Taylor wrote: When trying to profile ircd-hybrid-7 on -CURRENT (I tried using a pre-vm madness version first, then tried a version cvsuped today), I reliably get lots of: kernel trap 12 with interrupts disabled messages on the console (one every 5-10 seconds, when the ircd is reasonably loaded). This is because ast() calls addupc_task() with sched_lock held. addupc_task() calls copyin() and copyin() sometimes traps to fault in the profiling buffer. This seems to be just a bug in ast(). userret() is missing the bug. Untested fix: --- Index: trap.c === RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/i386/i386/trap.c,v retrieving revision 1.189 diff -u -1 -r1.189 trap.c --- trap.c2001/05/23 22:58:09 1.189 +++ trap.c2001/05/31 13:09:02 @@ -1285,5 +1341,6 @@ mtx_lock(Giant); - mtx_lock_spin(sched_lock); addupc_task(p, p-p_stats-p_prof.pr_addr, p-p_stats-p_prof.pr_ticks); + mtx_lock_spin(sched_lock); + /* XXX why not unlock Giant? */ } --- I tested this, and it works! No more `kernel trap 12 with interrupts disabled' messages, and also, thankfully, no more panics. (Related to this anyway, I'm still getting freelist corruption related things). I think this is caused by the same bug. kernel trap almost any with interrupts disabled should be fatal (the case of trap 12 (only) _is_ fatal in my version), but the kernel attempts to fix the problem and continue. This sort of worked when things were locked by disabling interrupts. Now, things may be locked by a spinlock as well as by disabling interrupts, and the corresponding fixup would be to release the spinlock. But this is more obviously wrong. Bruce Yeah, just trying to cover up the problem and march on usually doesn't work out very well in computing.. or anywhere else, really.. -- David Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP signature
Re: PATCH: media option for ethernet hw checksum
Jonathan Lemon wrote: Here is a patch I have locally that would be useful for Bill Paul, I think. I know, we could use flag0 for this, but it seems to me that this will be an increasingly common option in hadware. I know Bill had to set this manually as a compile time flag, for lack of an option (same for the JMB Intel Gigabit card driver). Um, why? It shouldn't be an option. Either the card supports it and it's turned on, or it doesn't and it's turned off. If anything, perhaps there should be a sysctl to enable/disable all hw checksums for those who want a more end-to-end solution. I think you are behind in this thread. The answer is in several parts: 1) For some Gigabit cards, the host can do it faster; for others, it can not. If you can have a machine with several different cards in it, then it needs to be a per card option. This was my initial reason, since I have a local system with both Tigon II and Tigon III cards in it. 2) For some topologies, it makes sense to turn off the checksum checking entirely for local link destinations, since the checksum is not really useful, but it is not possible to negotiate it off on an end-to-end basis, but you might want to avoid the overhead to get much closer to wire speeds on a local intra-cluster network. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
wicontrol ifconfig after wireless ifconfig changes
Hello, After updating to yesterday's current, my victim laptop's wireless card stopped working. It turns out that wicontrol wasn't setting the card correctly. Using the nifty new ifconfig commands worked perfectly. This started right after pkh's changes to ifconfig to replace the various wireless control programs. If the intent is to have both *control and ifconfig working, I'll be happy to document exactly what isn't working. If the intent is to replace *control, should a note be put in UPDATING that users might have problems? Thanks. ==ml PS: Using ifconfig, you can easily see when your card is misconfigured by the no carrier warning. That is really, really cool. Thank you! -- Michael Lucas [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.blackhelicopters.org/~mwlucas/ Big Scary Daemons: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/q/Big_Scary_Daemons To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: wicontrol ifconfig after wireless ifconfig changes
On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 06:58:47PM -0400, Michael Lucas wrote: After updating to yesterday's current, my victim laptop's wireless card stopped working. It turns out that wicontrol wasn't setting the card correctly. Using the nifty new ifconfig commands worked perfectly. This started right after pkh's changes to ifconfig to replace the various wireless control programs. If the intent is to have both *control and ifconfig working, I'll be happy to document exactly what isn't working. If the intent is to replace *control, should a note be put in UPDATING that users might have problems? It should be working and I'd like to know what's not. There is functionality in wicontrol that won't ever make it in to ifconfig so we're stuck with it and I wouldn't want to change it in -stable. -- Brooks -- Any statement of the form X is the one, true Y is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 PGP signature
Re: wicontrol ifconfig after wireless ifconfig changes
On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 04:06:42PM -0700, Brooks Davis wrote: It should be working and I'd like to know what's not. There is functionality in wicontrol that won't ever make it in to ifconfig so we're stuck with it and I wouldn't want to change it in -stable. -- Brooks My apologies. It seems to be working now. I'd say pilot error, except it's a shell script I call every time I'm working on it. If it happens again, I'll capture wicontrol and ifconfig and send them to the list. If not, I'll officially declare myself a moron. (Yeah, like folks didn't know that already...) ==ml -- Michael Lucas [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.blackhelicopters.org/~mwlucas/ Big Scary Daemons: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/q/Big_Scary_Daemons To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: wicontrol ifconfig after wireless ifconfig changes
On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 07:26:41PM -0400, Michael Lucas wrote: My apologies. It seems to be working now. I'd say pilot error, except it's a shell script I call every time I'm working on it. If it happens again, I'll capture wicontrol and ifconfig and send them to the list. If not, I'll officially declare myself a moron. (Yeah, like folks didn't know that already...) Could you send me that script? I'd like to see what it does to see if it's near any of the code I'm less certain about. -- Brooks -- Any statement of the form X is the one, true Y is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 PGP signature
Re: The FreeBSD core team needs your help
On Friday, 1 June 2001 at 17:54:13 +0200, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: On Fri, 1 Jun 2001 13:41:57 +0930 Greg Lehey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: GL When a request or question is sent to core@ you reply with an Could you stick some numbers in here please. How much email does core@ get ? Normally much less than 10 messages a day. What percentage of it (roughly) is handled immediately ? Currently, almost none. The thing is that we currently all need to respond, and that takes time; thus the one week rule. Since jkh's suggestion a couple of days ago, we're taking this rule less seriously and getting things done more quickly. GL It is also your responsibility to prepare a summary of core@'s GL businnes once per month and after cores approval of the text, to Based on the aforementioned email or is there more 'input' ? If so roughly how much ? With very few exceptions it's all email. Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
