Larry,
Did you ever get back to Intel's Robert Moore WRT to his May 21st message
(Msg-ID [EMAIL PROTECTED]) ?
Regards,
Andre Guibert de Bruet | Enterprise Software Consultant
Silicon Landmark, LLC. | http://siliconlandmark.com/
On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, Larry Rosenman wrote:
--On
Yes I did, and NO replies (at least directly to me).
he was CC'd on a NUMBER of replies from me to both Nate and others.
LER
--On Tuesday, June 10, 2003 07:59:12 -0400 Andre Guibert de Bruet
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Larry,
Did you ever get back to Intel's Robert Moore WRT to his May 21st
Tom Samplonius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I guess I'm not the only one with hardware that is unusable with FreeBSD
5.x, but FreeBSD 5.x simply is not installable on Dell PowerEdge 6350
servers. FreeBSD 4.8 works fine on the same hardware. FreeBSD 5.0,
5.1-BETA1, 5.1-BETA2, and 5.1-RC1 all
On 07-Jun-2003 Tom Samplonius wrote:
I guess I'm not the only one with hardware that is unusable with FreeBSD
5.x, but FreeBSD 5.x simply is not installable on Dell PowerEdge 6350
servers. FreeBSD 4.8 works fine on the same hardware. FreeBSD 5.0,
5.1-BETA1, 5.1-BETA2, and 5.1-RC1 all
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
Tom Samplonius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I guess I'm not the only one with hardware that is unusable with FreeBSD
5.x, but FreeBSD 5.x simply is not installable on Dell PowerEdge 6350
servers. FreeBSD 4.8 works fine on the same hardware.
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, John Baldwin wrote:
I've submitted a PR (#52561), about this problem. I've updated it
...
Can you hook up a serial console and try again? When the loader does
the 10 second countdown, hit space and type 'set console=comconsole'.
This will give you a 9600N81 console
On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, Robert Watson wrote:
This is an automated bi-daily mailing of the FreeBSD 5.1 open issues list.
The live version of this list is available at:
Well, we won't be needing *that* anymore :-). Expect the 5.2 TODO to
trickle in every few weeks for the next few months, and feel
Robert Watson wrote: |
|---++---+---|
| || | The 20030228 vendor |
| Fresh ACPI-CA | -- | --| sources have been |
| import||
Lars Eggert wrote:
Robert Watson wrote: |
|---++---+---|
| || | The 20030228
vendor |
| Fresh ACPI-CA | -- | --| sources have
been |
| import
FYI, I still see the ACPI messages described in the Re: ACPI-0293
(and
0166) errors-thread on -current ca. 5/9/2003 on
yesterday's -current.
Lars
Yeah, ACPI is causing many problems these days, much of which
can be traced back to non-compliant system BIOS's. The new
bootloader menu
--On Thursday, June 05, 2003 18:59:49 +0200 Erik Paulsen Skaalerud
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FYI, I still see the ACPI messages described in the Re: ACPI-0293
(and
0166) errors-thread on -current ca. 5/9/2003 on
yesterday's -current.
Lars
Yeah, ACPI is causing many problems these days,
Larry Rosenman wrote:
--On Thursday, June 05, 2003 18:59:49 +0200 Erik Paulsen Skaalerud
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FYI, I still see the ACPI messages described in the Re: ACPI-0293
(and
0166) errors-thread on -current ca. 5/9/2003 on
yesterday's -current.
Lars
Yeah, ACPI is causing many
On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, Scott Long wrote:
Larry Rosenman wrote:
For the record, yesterday's sources STILL produce the panic at 0x7 for
me on transition to battery.
I can get more crashdumps/kernels if someone asks.
I've mentioned this for the last ~1.5 months.
The official position is
Lars Eggert writes:
Robert Watson wrote: |
|---++---+--
-|
| || | The 20030228 vendor
|
| Fresh ACPI-CA | -- | --| sources have been
|
I guess I'm not the only one with hardware that is unusable with FreeBSD
5.x, but FreeBSD 5.x simply is not installable on Dell PowerEdge 6350
servers. FreeBSD 4.8 works fine on the same hardware. FreeBSD 5.0,
5.1-BETA1, 5.1-BETA2, and 5.1-RC1 all die in sysinstall is detecting
hardware and
On Mon, 02 Jun 2003 07:09:44 -0300
Daniel C. Sobral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hadn't any program running with legitimate access to /mnt and I have
no program running which accesses a random filesystem path, so no vnodes
should have been open then.
Alas, lsof (ports) would be a better
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 03:00:09PM +0200, Bernd Walter wrote:
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 02:26:34AM -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 03:32:56AM +0200, Bernd Walter wrote:
...
:)
And I hoped a programmer who knows the source could find out and fix
very quickly.
Where do we stand on this now? Is this ready for committing? Is it
completely solved?
Scott
Bernd Walter wrote:
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 03:00:09PM +0200, Bernd Walter wrote:
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 02:26:34AM -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 03:32:56AM +0200, Bernd Walter
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 02:26:34AM -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 03:32:56AM +0200, Bernd Walter wrote:
...
:)
And I hoped a programmer who knows the source could find out and fix
very quickly.
sorry, i missed the offending line number in your previous email.
I
On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 09:00:13 -0400 (EDT)
Robert Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Areas requiring immediate testing
I already reported to -current that I wasn't able to umount a msdosfs
slice a while ago (umount failed with busy and the slice was still
mounted), last week I had the possibility
Alexander Leidinger wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 09:00:13 -0400 (EDT)
Robert Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Areas requiring immediate testing
I already reported to -current that I wasn't able to umount a msdosfs
slice a while ago (umount failed with busy and the slice was still
mounted), last
On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 11:46:34 -0600
Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've mounted many MSDOS filesystems recently without problems. Do have
any other information about this? Did you verify that there were no
open vnodes on the filesystem?
I just copied 13 GB from the msdosfs to an ufs
On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 11:46:34 -0600
Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've mounted many MSDOS filesystems recently without problems. Do have
any other information about this? Did you verify that there were no
open vnodes on the filesystem?
Simply mounting, reading and umount the fs works:
-snip-
Monday, 02. June 2003, 09:16:59
{0} FreeBSD 5.1-BETA [Magelan:~]
(6) [EMAIL PROTECTED] # cp /mnt/ftpchroot-test.sh /tmp/
Monday, 02. June 2003, 09:17:12
{0} FreeBSD 5.1-BETA [Magelan:~]
(7) [EMAIL PROTECTED] # umount /tmp
umount: unmount of /tmp failed: Device busy
Monday, 02.
On 02 Jun 2003 17:38:28 +1000
Mark Sergeant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Umm shouldn't you be trying to umount /mnt ?
I retested this and now used /mnt in the umount invocation... (blushI
hope I'm awake now./blush).
It umounts now successfully. I noticed some commits to the vfs layer
between my
Alexander Leidinger wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 11:46:34 -0600
Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've mounted many MSDOS filesystems recently without problems. Do have
any other information about this? Did you verify that there were no
open vnodes on the filesystem?
I just copied 13 GB from
On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 09:00:16AM -0400, Robert Watson wrote:
This is an automated bi-daily mailing of the FreeBSD 5.1 open issues list.
The live version of this list is available at:
http://www.FreeBSD.org/releases/5.1R/todo.html
Automated mailing of this list will continue through
Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 09:00:16AM -0400, Robert Watson wrote:
This is an automated bi-daily mailing of the FreeBSD 5.1 open issues list.
The live version of this list is available at:
http://www.FreeBSD.org/releases/5.1R/todo.html
Automated mailing of this list will
On Sat, 31 May 2003, Scott Long wrote:
It's been a matter of not having enough time, nothing more. I *will*
address this one way or another before the release. I apologize for
taking so long.
Ditto, here, unfortunately. I managed to hose my sparc64 box a couple of
weeks ago trying to
If memory serves me right, Scott Long wrote:
It's been a matter of not having enough time, nothing more. I *will*
address this one way or another before the release. I apologize for
taking so long.
Scott, you're hardly the only person with the ability to test this
problem. In fact, you're
On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 02:24:59PM -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 09:00:16AM -0400, Robert Watson wrote:
++
| Issue | Status| Responsible | Description |
On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 08:18:10PM -0400, Robert Watson wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2003, Scott Long wrote:
It's been a matter of not having enough time, nothing more. I *will*
address this one way or another before the release. I apologize for
taking so long.
Ditto, here, unfortunately.
On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 05:39:58PM -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 08:18:10PM -0400, Robert Watson wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2003, Scott Long wrote:
It's been a matter of not having enough time, nothing more. I *will*
address this one way or another before the release.
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 03:32:56AM +0200, Bernd Walter wrote:
...
:)
And I hoped a programmer who knows the source could find out and fix
very quickly.
sorry, i missed the offending line number in your previous email.
I think i missed a in all the first arguments to bcopy in
the
On Sat, 31 May 2003, Robert Watson wrote:
|---++---+---|
| || | The recently upgraded |
| || | if_wi driver is more |
|
John Baldwin wrote:
On 14-May-2003 Terry Lambert wrote:
The DISABLE_PG_G, as I said in a previous posting, works around
an order of operation problem that needs to clear PG in %CR0
while it does it's thing, after which there's no problem with
enabling it. See IA-32 Intel Architecture
36 matches
Mail list logo
