Re: fxp driver not reset after Windows reboot?

2000-12-17 Thread Andrzej Bialecki
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Jonathan M. Bresler wrote: Andrzej, did you receive a response regarding your email the Intel Pro 10/100B/100+ Ethernet being unresponsive after running windows? i seem to have the same problem. Yes and no. The answer provided by dg (I think) was that Win

Re: Is compatibility for old aout binaries broken?

2000-12-17 Thread Stephen McKay
On Saturday, 16th December 2000, "Donald J . Maddox" wrote: The other day, on a whim, I decided to try running an old binary of SimCity (the same one found in the 'commerce' directory on many FBSD cds), and it failed in a odd way... You and I may be the only people in the world that run old

Re: Is compatibility for old aout binaries broken?

2000-12-17 Thread Donald J . Maddox
Ok, thanks for a very enlightening explanation :) Under the circumstances, it seems silly to have aout conpat bits installed at all, seeing as how they cannot work. Like you, I normally upgrade from source -- This box has been -current ever since 2.0.5 or so was -current, but I had to

test/review: /dev/console logging patch

2000-12-17 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
This patch is for the printf(9), log(9) /dev/console stuff. The result is that you can watch the output from /etc/rc in your /var/log/messages. Poul-Henning 1. Replace logwakeup() with msgbuftrigger++; There is little point in calling a function to set a flag. 2. Keep better track of

Build failure in -current

2000-12-17 Thread Jordan Hubbard
sh ../../conf/newvers.sh BOOTMFS cc -c -O -Wall -Wredundant-decls -Wnested-externs -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Winline -Wcast-qual -fformat-extensions -ansi -nostdinc -I- -I. -I../.. -I../../dev -I../../../include -I../../contrib/dev/acpica/Subsystem/Include

Re: test/review: /dev/console logging patch

2000-12-17 Thread Doug Barton
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: This patch is for the printf(9), log(9) /dev/console stuff. The result is that you can watch the output from /etc/rc in your /var/log/messages. This works spectacularly for me on a UP -current with up to date sources. The only nit I have is that it doesn't

RE: Build failure in -current

2000-12-17 Thread Chris Knight
Howdy, I've been noticing this on my daily builds for the last five days. I've just tried the attached patch, which works for me. Regards, Chris Knight Systems Administrator AIMS Independent Computer Professionals Tel: +61 3 6334 6664 Fax: +61 3 6331 7032 Mob: +61 419 528 795 Web:

Re: test/review: /dev/console logging patch

2000-12-17 Thread Crist J. Clark
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 01:15:41PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: This patch is for the printf(9), log(9) /dev/console stuff. The result is that you can watch the output from /etc/rc in your /var/log/messages. This works spectacularly for me on a UP

RE: test/review: /dev/console logging patch

2000-12-17 Thread John Baldwin
On 17-Dec-00 Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: This patch is for the printf(9), log(9) /dev/console stuff. The result is that you can watch the output from /etc/rc in your /var/log/messages. Poul-Henning 1. Replace logwakeup() with msgbuftrigger++; There is little point in calling a

Re: test/review: /dev/console logging patch

2000-12-17 Thread John Baldwin
On 17-Dec-00 Doug Barton wrote: Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: This patch is for the printf(9), log(9) /dev/console stuff. The result is that you can watch the output from /etc/rc in your /var/log/messages. This works spectacularly for me on a UP -current with up to date sources. The

Re: test/review: /dev/console logging patch

2000-12-17 Thread Peter Jeremy
On 2000-Dec-17 15:06:40 -0800, John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 17-Dec-00 Doug Barton wrote: Would there be any harm to changing the dots to something more meaningful, like "Done with additional network setup" on its own line? The '.'s are simple and not too cluttery. Agreed. I

Re: Build failure in -current

2000-12-17 Thread Jordan Hubbard
I've been noticing this on my daily builds for the last five days. I've just tried the attached patch, which works for me. Well, that's a fix, just not the right one. :) There should be no "dangling references" to soft updates if SOFTUPDATES is not defined. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send

Re: Build failure in -current

2000-12-17 Thread assar
"Chris Knight" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've been noticing this on my daily builds for the last five days. I've just tried the attached patch, which works for me. But it does only solve the problem for `make release'. Please upgrade so that you have sys/ufs/ffs/ffs_softdep_stub.c 1.15 which

Re: test/review: /dev/console logging patch

2000-12-17 Thread Doug Barton
Peter Jeremy wrote: On 2000-Dec-17 15:06:40 -0800, John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 17-Dec-00 Doug Barton wrote: Would there be any harm to changing the dots to something more meaningful, like "Done with additional network setup" on its own line? . Agreed. I think the

RE: Build failure in -current

2000-12-17 Thread Chris Knight
Howdy, -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jordan Hubbard Sent: Monday, 18 December 2000 10:54 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Build failure in -current I've been noticing this on my

RE: Build failure in -current

2000-12-17 Thread Chris Knight
Howdy, You beat me to it. I was just about to send a patch that did exactly the same thing. Regards, Chris Knight Systems Administrator AIMS Independent Computer Professionals Tel: +61 3 6334 6664 Fax: +61 3 6331 7032 Mob: +61 419 528 795 Web: http://www.aims.com.au -Original

Panic with fairly up to date -current, seems NFS related

2000-12-17 Thread Doug Barton
I built -current world and kernel around 3am PST sunday morning with up to date sources. Later that same day I added Poul-Henning's console logging patch. Just a few minutes ago I had a lockup and panic that thankfully produced a kernel core to work with. It looks like this is not related

RE: Panic with fairly up to date -current, seems NFS related

2000-12-17 Thread John Baldwin
On 18-Dec-00 Doug Barton wrote: I built -current world and kernel around 3am PST sunday morning with up to date sources. Later that same day I added Poul-Henning's console logging patch. Just a few minutes ago I had a lockup and panic that thankfully produced a kernel core to work

Re: Panic with fairly up to date -current, seems NFS related

2000-12-17 Thread assar
John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Grog had a similar panic on IRC the other day: #7 0xc021c857 in nfs_msg (p=0x0, server=0xc0bf0cf2 "slave:/usr/home", msg=0xc02ba748 "not responding") at The 'p' parameter is a process that is supposed to be making the request, and thus is

Re: Panic with fairly up to date -current, seems NFS related

2000-12-17 Thread Bosko Milekic
On 18 Dec 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since proc can be NULL and most of the other code in nfs_socket handles it I do think this actually is the right thing to do. Comments? I'm more concerned with whether it's actually normal for the process pointer to be NULL in the first

Re: Panic with fairly up to date -current, seems NFS related

2000-12-17 Thread assar
Bosko Milekic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm more concerned with whether it's actually normal for the process pointer to be NULL in the first place. Is this the case? One example (which I don't know if that what's happening here) is when following symbolic links. namei() calls

Re: Panic with fairly up to date -current, seems NFS related

2000-12-17 Thread Doug Barton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bosko Milekic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm more concerned with whether it's actually normal for the process pointer to be NULL in the first place. Is this the case? One example (which I don't know if that what's happening here) is when following

Re: test/review: /dev/console logging patch

2000-12-17 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
This patch is for the printf(9), log(9) /dev/console stuff. The result is that you can watch the output from /etc/rc in your /var/log/messages. Dec 17 13:00:26 console.info Master /boot/kernel/kernel: Doing additional network setup: Dec 17 13:00:26 console.info Master

Re: test/review: /dev/console logging patch

2000-12-17 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Baldwin writes: On 17-Dec-00 Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: This patch is for the printf(9), log(9) /dev/console stuff. The result is that you can watch the output from /etc/rc in your /var/log/messages. Poul-Henning 1. Replace logwakeup() with

Re: test/review: /dev/console logging patch

2000-12-17 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Jeremy writes: I'm not offering code right now, but how about using a `newline or timeout' approach? If there's a partial line and there's been no console output for some number of seconds, forward the line to log(9). I played with this, and I was not happy

Re: Is compatibility for old aout binaries broken?

2000-12-17 Thread Stephen McKay
On Sunday, 17th December 2000, "Donald J . Maddox" wrote: Under the circumstances, it seems silly to have aout conpat bits installed at all, seeing as how they cannot work. Old programs that don't depend on recompiled libraries are fine. I can't guess at the percentages though. Also, nearly

Re: Is compatibility for old aout binaries broken?

2000-12-17 Thread Donald J . Maddox
Well, if you do manage to uncover the lost magic, please let me know :) On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 04:41:17PM +1000, Stephen McKay wrote: I expected some build tool expert to say "Just compile with these options". But they haven't. So I'll see if the bits have rotted, or whether we can keep

Re: test/review: /dev/console logging patch

2000-12-17 Thread Doug Barton
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: This patch is for the printf(9), log(9) /dev/console stuff. The result is that you can watch the output from /etc/rc in your /var/log/messages. Dec 17 13:00:26 console.info Master /boot/kernel/kernel: Doing additional network setup: Dec 17 13:00:26

Re: test/review: /dev/console logging patch

2000-12-17 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Barton writes: The '.'s are simple and not too cluttery. Fixing the console to line buffer what it sends to log(9) is a better fix, IMO. I specifically decided not to do this because I want to be able to see stuff like: echo -n "Press return