# route add default 192.168.1.1
fiboptlist_csv: arg default, ret 846422615, str 0
route: fiboptlist_csv failed.
On Tuesday 11 December 2012 11:13:34 Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
Artyom,
can you please run route with attached patch and show output?
--
This message is for the person(s) named
Gleb, when I reset errno at the begin of fiboptlist_csv() everything work as
expected.
On Tuesday 11 December 2012 12:16:13 Artyom Mirgorodskiy wrote:
# route add default 192.168.1.1
fiboptlist_csv: arg default, ret 846422615, str 0
route: fiboptlist_csv failed.
On Tuesday 11 December
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:21:20PM +0200, Artyom Mirgorodskiy wrote:
A Gleb, when I reset errno at the begin of fiboptlist_csv() everything work as
expected.
Artyom,
can you please test attached patch?
--
Totus tuus, Glebius.
Index: route.c
Works fine
On Tuesday 11 December 2012 16:07:03 Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:21:20PM +0200, Artyom Mirgorodskiy wrote:
A Gleb, when I reset errno at the begin of fiboptlist_csv() everything work
as expected.
Artyom,
can you please test attached patch?
--
This
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Garrett Cooper yaneg...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Going back in time a until the start of November didn't help. This
zpool get version for both of the pools is quite interesting -- in
particular, why is the value unset (-)? I've provided the zdb -C
info as well
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 07:11:59PM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote:
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 01:38:21PM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote:
Adrian Chadd wrote:
.. what was the previous kernel version?
Hopefully Tim has it narrowed down
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Rick Macklem rmack...@uoguelph.ca wrote:
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 07:11:59PM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote:
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 01:38:21PM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote:
Adrian Chadd wrote:
.. what
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 04:55:52PM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote:
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 07:11:59PM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote:
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 01:38:21PM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote:
Adrian Chadd wrote:
.. what was the
On Monday, December 10, 2012 5:20:53 pm Adrian Chadd wrote:
Hi,
The fact the initial probe/attach fails by returning 0x means
the chip isn't right on the bus.
It's either just not mapped in correctly, or it's powered off.
If it were just asleep, it'd return 0xdeadc0de or
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 04:55:52PM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote:
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 07:11:59PM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote:
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 01:38:21PM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote:
Adrian
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 05:30:24PM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote:
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 04:55:52PM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote:
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 07:11:59PM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote:
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Mon,
On 11 December 2012 12:49, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
Look, it's up to you to look at more registers if you want to debug this
further. PCI says everything is ok, so the ball is in your court.
Right, that's why I've asked for those two above registers.
There are other things that
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 05:30:24PM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote:
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 04:55:52PM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote:
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 07:11:59PM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote:
Konstantin
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 08:58:47PM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote:
Ok, I'll test r243598 and then r243599 and r243835, just to
see if it really is this.
I'll email when I have done this.
If you test only r243598, I am sure that you would experience corruption.
The r243599 should cause the
14 matches
Mail list logo
