Re: vm_page_t related KBI [Was: Re: panic at vm_page_wire with FreeBSD 9.0 Beta 3]

2011-11-16 Thread Kostik Belousov
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 07:15:01PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote: 2011/11/7 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com: On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0600, Alan Cox wrote: Ok.  I'll offer one final suggestion.  Please consider an alternative suffix to func.  Perhaps, kbi or KBI.  In other words,

Re: [RFC] Enable nxstack by default

2011-11-16 Thread Kostik Belousov
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 01:09:18AM +0100, Oliver Pinter wrote: On 11/15/11, Jeremie Le Hen jere...@le-hen.org wrote: Hi, On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:37:44AM +0200, Oliver Pinter wrote: In NetBSD has been some PaX feature [0] implemented. (ASLR, W^X (~nxstack), mprotect restriction,

Re: [amd64] Reproducible cold boot failure (reboot succeeds) in -CURRENT

2011-11-16 Thread John Baldwin
On Sunday, November 13, 2011 12:56:12 pm Stefan Esser wrote: Am 11.11.2011 13:15, schrieb Attilio Rao: Can you try rebuilding your kernel and modules from scratch and see if it fixes your problem? Sorry for the delay, but my system seems to need being turned off (S5) for many hours (whole

[PATCH] Detect GNU/kFreeBSD in user-visible kernel headers

2011-11-16 Thread Robert Millan
Hi! Out of the kernel headers that are installed in /usr/include/ hierracy, there are some which include support multiple operating systems (usually FreeBSD and other *BSD flavours). This patch adds support to detect GNU/kFreeBSD as well. In all cases, we match the same declarations as FreeBSD

Re: [PATCH] Detect GNU/kFreeBSD in user-visible kernel headers

2011-11-16 Thread Xin LI
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/16/11 09:27, Robert Millan wrote: Hi! Out of the kernel headers that are installed in /usr/include/ hierracy, there are some which include support multiple operating systems (usually FreeBSD and other *BSD flavours). This patch adds

[head tinderbox] failure on amd64/amd64

2011-11-16 Thread FreeBSD Tinderbox
TB --- 2011-11-16 15:30:00 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-11-16 15:30:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for amd64/amd64 TB --- 2011-11-16 15:30:00 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-11-16 15:31:04 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-11-16 15:31:04 -

Re: [PATCH] Detect GNU/kFreeBSD in user-visible kernel headers

2011-11-16 Thread Robert Millan
2011/11/16 Xin LI delp...@delphij.net: Just my $0.02 -- I think we should probably do it in a more centralized place -- otherwise in case someone imported some new code, they have to do the same defined(__FreeBSD__) || defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__)? How about something like: #if

Re: [PATCH] Detect GNU/kFreeBSD in user-visible kernel headers

2011-11-16 Thread Warner Losh
Hey Robert, Thanks for jumping into this. Sadly, it is a bit of a mess. Many of the multiple BSD flavor support #ifdefs are actually quite stale by now, so they should be cleaned up. That's not something you have to cope with, unless you want, but it colors my first reaction :) My second

Re: [PATCH] Detect GNU/kFreeBSD in user-visible kernel headers

2011-11-16 Thread Warner Losh
On Nov 16, 2011, at 11:26 AM, Robert Millan wrote: 2011/11/16 Xin LI delp...@delphij.net: Just my $0.02 -- I think we should probably do it in a more centralized place -- otherwise in case someone imported some new code, they have to do the same defined(__FreeBSD__) ||

Re: [PATCH] Detect GNU/kFreeBSD in user-visible kernel headers

2011-11-16 Thread Adrian Chadd
.. my suggestion (high level, fluffy) is to try to get approval/consensus on fixing the immediate problem so things are consistently horrible, then a second pass to make them consistently unhorrible. Adrian ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list

Re: [head tinderbox] failure on amd64/amd64

2011-11-16 Thread Kostik Belousov
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 06:18:59PM +, FreeBSD Tinderbox wrote: TB --- 2011-11-16 15:30:00 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-11-16 15:30:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for amd64/amd64 TB --- 2011-11-16 15:30:00 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-11-16

Re: CFT: msk(4) 64bit DMA support

2011-11-16 Thread YongHyeon PYUN
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 06:40:43PM -0700, YongHyeon PYUN wrote: Hi, Here is a patch that implements 64bit DMA on msk(4). If you use msk(4) on a system that has more than 4GB memory, please try the patch at the following URL and let me know whether it works or not. You need latest msk(4) in

Re: Stop scheduler on panic

2011-11-16 Thread Fabian Keil
Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com wrote: I was tricked into finishing the work by Andrey Gapon, who developed the patch to reliably stop other processors on panic. The patch greatly improves the chances of getting dump on panic on SMP host. I tested the patch trying to get a dump (from the

[head tinderbox] failure on sparc64/sparc64

2011-11-16 Thread FreeBSD Tinderbox
TB --- 2011-11-16 19:23:31 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-11-16 19:23:31 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for sparc64/sparc64 TB --- 2011-11-16 19:23:31 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-11-16 19:23:44 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-11-16 19:23:44 -

[head tinderbox] failure on powerpc64/powerpc

2011-11-16 Thread FreeBSD Tinderbox
TB --- 2011-11-16 18:54:30 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-11-16 18:54:30 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for powerpc64/powerpc TB --- 2011-11-16 18:54:30 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-11-16 18:54:55 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-11-16 18:54:55 -

Re: Stop scheduler on panic

2011-11-16 Thread Andriy Gapon
on 16/11/2011 21:27 Fabian Keil said the following: Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com wrote: I was tricked into finishing the work by Andrey Gapon, who developed the patch to reliably stop other processors on panic. The patch greatly improves the chances of getting dump on panic on SMP

[RFC] ahci(4) patch

2011-11-16 Thread Maksim Yevmenkin
hello, would anyone object to the following ahci(4) patch? == --- ahci.c.orig 2011-11-16 21:35:26.0 + +++ ahci.c 2011-11-16 21:35:41.0 + @@ -500,7 +500,7 @@ for (unit = 0; unit ctlr-channels; unit++) { if ((ctlr-ichannels (1 unit)) == 0)

[head tinderbox] failure on arm/arm

2011-11-16 Thread FreeBSD Tinderbox
TB --- 2011-11-16 20:50:01 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-11-16 20:50:01 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for arm/arm TB --- 2011-11-16 20:50:01 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-11-16 20:50:27 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-11-16 20:50:27 -

Re: [RFC] ahci(4) patch

2011-11-16 Thread Alexander Motin
Hi. On 16.11.2011 23:59, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote: would anyone object to the following ahci(4) patch? == --- ahci.c.orig 2011-11-16 21:35:26.0 + +++ ahci.c 2011-11-16 21:35:41.0 + @@ -500,7 +500,7 @@ for (unit = 0; unit ctlr-channels; unit++) {

Re: [RFC] ahci(4) patch

2011-11-16 Thread Maksim Yevmenkin
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Alexander Motin m...@freebsd.org wrote: Hi. On 16.11.2011 23:59, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote: would anyone object to the following ahci(4) patch? == --- ahci.c.orig 2011-11-16 21:35:26.0 + +++ ahci.c      2011-11-16 21:35:41.0 + @@

Re: [RFC] ahci(4) patch

2011-11-16 Thread Alexander Motin
On 17.11.2011 00:44, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Alexander Motinm...@freebsd.org wrote: On 16.11.2011 23:59, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote: would anyone object to the following ahci(4) patch? == --- ahci.c.orig 2011-11-16 21:35:26.0 + +++ ahci.c

Re: Stop scheduler on panic

2011-11-16 Thread Alexander Motin
On 17.11.2011 00:21, Andriy Gapon wrote: on 16/11/2011 21:27 Fabian Keil said the following: Kostik Belousovkostik...@gmail.com wrote: I was tricked into finishing the work by Andrey Gapon, who developed the patch to reliably stop other processors on panic. The patch greatly improves the

Re: [RFC] ahci(4) patch

2011-11-16 Thread Maksim Yevmenkin
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Alexander Motin m...@freebsd.org wrote: On 17.11.2011 00:44, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Alexander Motinm...@freebsd.org  wrote: On 16.11.2011 23:59, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote: would anyone object to the following ahci(4) patch?

[head tinderbox] failure on i386/pc98

2011-11-16 Thread FreeBSD Tinderbox
TB --- 2011-11-16 20:50:01 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-11-16 20:50:01 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for i386/pc98 TB --- 2011-11-16 20:50:01 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-11-16 20:50:23 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-11-16 20:50:23 -

[head tinderbox] failure on i386/i386

2011-11-16 Thread FreeBSD Tinderbox
TB --- 2011-11-16 20:50:01 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-11-16 20:50:01 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for i386/i386 TB --- 2011-11-16 20:50:01 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-11-16 20:50:43 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-11-16 20:50:43 -

[head tinderbox] failure on ia64/ia64

2011-11-16 Thread FreeBSD Tinderbox
TB --- 2011-11-16 22:33:50 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-11-16 22:33:50 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for ia64/ia64 TB --- 2011-11-16 22:33:50 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-11-16 22:34:03 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-11-16 22:34:03 -

[head tinderbox] failure on sparc64/sparc64

2011-11-16 Thread FreeBSD Tinderbox
TB --- 2011-11-17 00:22:26 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-11-17 00:22:26 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for sparc64/sparc64 TB --- 2011-11-17 00:22:26 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-11-17 00:22:35 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-11-17 00:22:35 -

[head tinderbox] failure on powerpc/powerpc

2011-11-16 Thread FreeBSD Tinderbox
TB --- 2011-11-16 23:32:18 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-11-16 23:32:18 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for powerpc/powerpc TB --- 2011-11-16 23:32:18 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-11-16 23:32:32 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-11-16 23:32:32 -

[head tinderbox] failure on powerpc64/powerpc

2011-11-16 Thread FreeBSD Tinderbox
TB --- 2011-11-17 00:14:43 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-11-17 00:14:43 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for powerpc64/powerpc TB --- 2011-11-17 00:14:43 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-11-17 00:15:00 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-11-17 00:15:00 -

[head tinderbox] failure on arm/arm

2011-11-16 Thread FreeBSD Tinderbox
TB --- 2011-11-17 02:10:00 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-11-17 02:10:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for arm/arm TB --- 2011-11-17 02:10:00 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-11-17 02:10:21 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-11-17 02:10:21 -

[head tinderbox] failure on i386/pc98

2011-11-16 Thread FreeBSD Tinderbox
TB --- 2011-11-17 02:10:00 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-11-17 02:10:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for i386/pc98 TB --- 2011-11-17 02:10:00 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-11-17 02:10:19 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-11-17 02:10:19 -

[head tinderbox] failure on i386/i386

2011-11-16 Thread FreeBSD Tinderbox
TB --- 2011-11-17 02:10:00 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-11-17 02:10:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for i386/i386 TB --- 2011-11-17 02:10:00 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-11-17 02:10:20 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-11-17 02:10:20 -

[head tinderbox] failure on ia64/ia64

2011-11-16 Thread FreeBSD Tinderbox
TB --- 2011-11-17 03:56:15 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-11-17 03:56:15 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for ia64/ia64 TB --- 2011-11-17 03:56:15 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-11-17 03:56:29 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-11-17 03:56:29 -

Re: [PATCH] Detect GNU/kFreeBSD in user-visible kernel headers

2011-11-16 Thread Robert Millan
2011/11/16 Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com: My second reaction was why not have #ifndef __FreeBSD_kernel__ #define __FreeBSD_kernel__ __FreeBSD__ #endif in sys/param.h and then just change __FreeBSD__ to __FreeBSD_kernel__ in the headers that are affected?  But I'm not quite sure what effects

[head tinderbox] failure on powerpc/powerpc

2011-11-16 Thread FreeBSD Tinderbox
TB --- 2011-11-17 04:48:03 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-11-17 04:48:03 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for powerpc/powerpc TB --- 2011-11-17 04:48:03 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-11-17 04:48:15 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-11-17 04:48:15 -

[head tinderbox] failure on sparc64/sparc64

2011-11-16 Thread FreeBSD Tinderbox
TB --- 2011-11-17 05:44:08 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-11-17 05:44:08 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for sparc64/sparc64 TB --- 2011-11-17 05:44:08 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-11-17 05:44:19 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-11-17 05:44:19 -

[head tinderbox] failure on powerpc64/powerpc

2011-11-16 Thread FreeBSD Tinderbox
TB --- 2011-11-17 05:36:49 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2011-11-17 05:36:49 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for powerpc64/powerpc TB --- 2011-11-17 05:36:49 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2011-11-17 05:37:15 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2011-11-17 05:37:15 -