Re: APM related panic

1999-08-03 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Aug 08, 1999 at 10:20:38PM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: Jonathan; just some context, this is with your old 16-bit-protmode patches, spiffed up for -current, which I committed late last week. Heh. I had just about forgotten about this patchset. I was somwehat under the impression it wasn't

Re: APM related panic

1999-08-03 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Aug 08, 1999 at 09:57:10AM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: Fatal trap 9: general protection fault while in kernel mode instruction pointer = 0x48:0x8034 stack pointer = 0x10:0xc0279e98 frame pointer = 0x10:0x6789 code segment = base 0xc00f, limit 0x,

Re: recent apm changes

1999-08-05 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: In FreeBSD, when I activate suspend mode, I see the light on my computer blinking, indicating it has gone into suspend mode, but still there is no reduction in noise whatsoever. The disks keep spinning, the CPU fan (or whatever)

HEADS UP

1999-08-30 Thread Jonathan Lemon
I've just committed the revised TCP timer code. There are some user visible changes: User visible TCP timers are now in units of the system clock (10ms for the i386), not those of the slowtimeout (500ms). So if you have customized one of these values, (e.g.: net.inet.tcp.keepintvl),

Re: HEADS UP

1999-08-30 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Aug 08, 1999 at 02:27:53PM -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: I've just committed the revised TCP timer code. There are some user visible changes: User visible TCP timers are now in units of the system clock (10ms for the i386), not those of the slowtimeout (500ms). So if

Re: HEADS UP

1999-08-30 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Aug 08, 1999 at 11:36:30PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jonathan Lemon writes: I've just committed the revised TCP timer code. There are some user visible changes: User visible TCP timers are now in units of the system clock (10ms for the i386

Re: HEADS UP

1999-08-30 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Aug 08, 1999 at 03:01:32PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: I've just committed the revised TCP timer code. There are some user visible changes: User visible TCP timers are now in units of the system clock (10ms for the

Re: HEADS UP

1999-08-30 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Aug 08, 1999 at 11:40:23PM +0200, Mark Murray wrote: I've just committed the revised TCP timer code. There are some user visible changes: : Also, some new sysctls have been added: : ...c Please let the plebs know, in less kernel-ish terms, what this means? If you don't know

Re: HEADS UP

1999-08-30 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Aug 08, 1999 at 10:23:01PM -0400, Chris D. Faulhaber wrote: Does this have anything to do with the current (no pun intended) breakage: /usr/src/usr.sbin/trpt/trpt.c:358: `TCPT_REXMT' undeclared (first use in Yes; I forgot to commit the patch to remove references to the timers in this

Re: Problem with Compaq SMART-2SL array controller

1999-09-23 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: After doing a cvsup yesterday evening i can't seem to boot on my raid cotroller using the same kernel config. Is -current probing hardware i a different way now or ?? It appears so. The IDA driver needs to stomp on the WD

Re: Problem with Compaq SMART-2SL array controller

1999-09-23 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Sep 09, 1999 at 01:26:35PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jonathan Lemon writes: : It appears so. The IDA driver needs to stomp on the WD driver's : vectors in order to boot off of the RAID controller. It seems that : something changed so that wd is getting probed

Re: TCP sockets stuck in the CLOSING state

1999-01-02 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: Before I spend a lot of time hunting this down, I figured it might be worth asking -- is there any particular reason why TCP sockets may be getting stuck in the CLOSING state more often now? Not sure. But here's a tcpdump trace

Re: doscmd broken on current?

1999-01-04 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: Is doscmd working for anyone on current? Here I just get: - I have tried it on a single processor and SMP -current and both do the same thing. I had it working a while back, so I think my configuration is ok. Ideas on

Re: Serious locking problem in CURRENT

1999-01-04 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: On Sat, Nov 06, 1999 at 12:50:16AM +0100, Ollivier Robert wrote: A child process seems to be able to let go of a parent's lock on 4.0 by closing a file discriptor, the same doesn't seem to be true on 3.3. From the manual page

Re: TCP sockets stuck in the CLOSING state

1999-11-07 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Nov 11, 1999 at 01:41:48PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: [bringing this back to -current, with a Bcc to -security] "Kenneth D. Merry" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jonathan Lemon wrote... In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: Before I s

Re: ida driver in -current and eisa bus attachment

2000-03-10 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/2310101848$[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: Work on this driver is stalled owing to the fact that nobody that can and wants to work on it has access to the Compaq hardware required. You can't use these controllers except in Compaq systems, which makes

Re: ida driver in -current and eisa bus attachment

2000-03-10 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 11:45:19AM -0600, Alejandro Ramirez wrote: Hi Jonathan, Note that I just committed some more changes to the IDA driver to 4.0-RC yesterday. The changes are: - support for EISA controllers (untested) - support for newer S2400 controllers (untested) -

Re: Best NIC for FBSD (was: Buffer Problems and hangs in 4.0-CURRENT..)

2000-03-15 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mike Smith writes: fxp0: The Intel driver is by far the highest preformance model, beats the 3com (second best) hands down with much lower CPU overhead. Do you actually have any numbers to

Re: Somebody broke alpha kernel builds?

2000-03-25 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: 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../../../include -D_KERNEL -include

Re: Transparent proxying using ``ipfw fwd'' seems broken as of today

2000-03-29 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: Is it just me or is anybody else seeing this as well with today's kernel/world? Yes, green just brought this to my attention. I've committed a fix that should solve the problem. -- Jonathan To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL

Re: Using packed structs to gain cheap SMP primatives

2000-03-29 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: * Allen Pulsifer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000329 21:05] wrote: Here's another alternative for reading structures like time that always change monotonically: read the values in "MSB" to "LSB" order, then go back and check in reverse

HEADS UP; kq related changes

2000-04-16 Thread Jonathan Lemon
I just committed kq support to the tree. The first thing I forgot to mention in the commit log is that the size of `struct proc' changed, so a full buildworld is in order. Second, a man page is forthcoming, so if you're looking for that, wait a day or two. (I'm better at writing code than

Re: event.h troubles

2000-04-18 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: Now I got lost of /usr/include/sys/event.h:159: warning: `struct timespec' declared inside parameter list. because sys/select.h include it. Please fix somehow. I'm looking at this now. -- Jonathan To Unsubscribe: send mail

Re: event.h troubles

2000-04-18 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Tue, Apr 18, 2000 at 10:17:36AM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote: :In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: :Now I got lost of : :/usr/include/sys/event.h:159: warning: `struct timespec' declared inside :parameter list. : :because sys/select.h include it.

Re: LINT broken. (in_cksum changes)

2000-05-09 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Wed, May 10, 2000 at 01:49:51AM +0900, MIHIRA Yoshiro wrote: On Sun, 7 May 2000, Nick Hibma wrote: Is it only me that ever compiles LINT? The checksum changes went in a few days ago. Please, people, when you move code around or change a function that is used in

Re: SMP + APM = panic - fixed!

2000-06-06 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 02:06:15AM +0900, Mitsuru IWASAKI wrote: We're having this problem for long time (from the old 4.0-CURRENT days), but Mr. SUMITANI discovered a bug and fixed it. The problem was that we got worng gdt pointer for the current cpu, then panic... The followings is a

Re: SMP locking primities (was Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development)

2000-06-20 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: Am I the only person who miss a brief document which tells what the outcome of the meeting was ? I believe that Jason Evans already sent a message summarizing the meeting, and Matt Dillon's webpage gives a pretty good summary of

Re: tail after kqueue changes

2000-06-22 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Thu, Jun 22, 2000 at 05:25:55PM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote: Hi, I'm using the "-F" option of tail for some files which get rotated away. After the changes to use kqueue/kevent it didn't work as expected anymore. tail exits after the file gets rotated. Perhaps it didn't wait long

Re: Polygraph Considered Evil 8^) (was: Re: 5-STABLE Roadmap)

2003-02-17 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: Alex Rousskov wrote: One issue I have with Polygraph is that it intentionally works for a very long time to get worst case performance out of caches; basically, it cache-busts on purpose. Then the test runs. This seems to be an

Re: network stalls in top of the tree current

2003-02-22 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: /me too. Try sysctl net.inet.tcp.delayed_ack=0. I suspect that commit: http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=678980+0+current/cvs-src Yes, it looks like I screwed up. Turn off delayed_acks until get a fix (being tested)

Re: Panic while on mid-load network traffic

2003-02-24 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: I first noticed this last night, after recompiling the kernel to fix the delayed ACKs bug. What happens is that if I only use the network regularly (fetchmail/web browsing/IRC/IM/etc), the system seemed to run normally. But

Re: Panic while on mid-load network traffic

2003-02-24 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 12:43:43PM -0300, Fred Souza wrote: Do you have revision 1.196 of netinet/tcp_input.c? If not, please re-cvsup, as this version has some fixes that might apply in your case. I just re-cvsup'd and rebuilt the kernel. Same results, except that it now

Re: Checksum offload support for Intel 82550/82551

2003-02-24 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: The bulk of the changes are in if_fxp.c and if_fxpreg.h. I've been testing this on 5.0-RELEASE, using 82557, 82559 and 82550 cards, and so far it seems to behave as expected. I would like to commit this, but first I want to make

Re: TCP is still broken

2003-02-26 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: This program, based on one from the Apache 2 configure script, still causes -current to lock up solid despite the recent bug fixes to the tcptw code. Explicitly closing connected_s before returning from main() seems to avoid the

witness: nfs buf queue

2003-03-05 Thread Jonathan Lemon
Doing a kernel build over NFS on today's -current gives a pile of following error messages during the final link phase: Acquiring lockmgr lock nfs with the following non-sleepablelocks held: exclusive sleep mutex buf queue lock r = 0 (0xc0427b60) locked @ ../../../kern/vfs_bio.c:2107 Acquiring

Re: witness: nfs buf queue

2003-03-06 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 01:01:49PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: On 06-Mar-2003 Jonathan Lemon wrote: Doing a kernel build over NFS on today's -current gives a pile of following error messages during the final link phase: Acquiring lockmgr lock nfs with the following non-sleepablelocks

Re: mbuf cache

2003-03-07 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: Petri Helenius wrote: There's probably a tightloop of frees going on somewhere. It's tough for me to analyze this as I cannot reproduce it. Have you tried running your tests over loopback to see if the same thing

Re: cvs commit: src/sys/net if_arcsubr.c if_atmsubr.c if_ef.c if_ethersubr.c if_faith.c if_fddisubr.c if_gif.c if_iso88025subr.c if_loop.c if_ppp.c if_sl.c if_spppsubr.c if_stf.c if_tun.c netisr.c netisr.h src/sys/netatalk aarp.c at_extern.h at_var.h ...

2003-03-08 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 06:11:35PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello. On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 03:19:55PM -0800, Jonathan Lemon wrote: jlemon 2003/03/04 15:19:55 PST FreeBSD src repository Modified files: sys/net if_arcsubr.c if_atmsubr.c if_ef.c

Re: How does a module decide what to support?

2003-03-09 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: From my observations (yes, please correct me if I am wrong), that modules define what to support in their respective makefiles in the form of SRC= aaa.c bbb.c opt_*.h Where opt_*.h are automagically generated if they are not in

Re: exclusive sleep mutex netisr...

2003-03-11 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: I see several instances of this in /var/log/messages after cvsup'ing Monday evening and rebuilding world and kernel. I haven't seen any messages about this, so I figured I'd ask here. Message: Mar 11 17:33:30 lorne kernel:

Re: fxp SCB timeout problems [FIX]

2001-08-28 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 09:32:22AM -0600, Brad Huntting wrote: From my perspective, negative functionality is being lost. There is a nice comment in the source code explaining what it is... * Enable workarounds for certain chip revision deficiencies. *

Re: HEADS UP: ACPI CHANGES AFFECTING MOST -CURRENT USERS

2001-09-06 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jim Bryant writes: : I doubt if the bootloader will ever change from FORTH, but if it : does, I suggest LISP as the preferred choice on a short-list of : potential replacements. It would make it very

Re: net-snmp port on -CURRENT?

2001-09-06 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: Hi... I am trying to build net-snmp port on -CURRENT but don't have enough luck with it. Here's the error message on my system: -- cc -DINET6 -O -pipe -march=pentiumpro -Dfreebsd5 -I. -I../.. -I. -I./../.. -I./../../snmplib

Re: arp: some ether addr is using my IP address 0.0.0.0! ??!?!?

2001-10-19 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 04:58:21PM -0700, Mark Peek wrote: At 11:23 AM +0200 10/18/01, Harti Brandt wrote: On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Max Khon wrote: MKhi, there! MK MKOn Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 12:00:52AM +0200, Jose M. Alcaide wrote: MK MK On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 12:11:45PM -0700, Julian

Re: panic at shutdown

2001-11-03 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: For about a week, I've been getting panics at shutdown, caused by cn_devopen() calling devsw() with a NULL dev argument. I imagine it may be related to recent changes in the console code. If it's of any interest, I have -Dh in

Re: panic: vrele: missed vn_close

2001-10-24 Thread Jonathan Lemon
Hmm. The way the revamped console code works is this: cn_devopen() calls vn_open() to open the device. If this is not a VCHR device, then it is closed. Otherwise, the vnode is stashed in cnd-cnd_vp. When the device is closed though cnclose(), it walks through a list of console devices,

Re: panic: vrele: missed vn_close

2001-10-24 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 11:59:52AM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote: : :Hmm. The way the revamped console code works is this: : : cn_devopen() calls vn_open() to open the device. If this is not a :VCHR device, then it is closed. Otherwise, the vnode is stashed in :cnd-cnd_vp. : : When

Re: re-entrancy and the IP stack.

2001-11-16 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: As another example, the ipfw code uses a couple of static variables too, in the 'fwd' code amongst other places.. What is needed is obviously a 'per packet' storage location for those things, defined in a per protocol family

Re: KRIS: FOR YOU TO COMMIT: soft interrupt coelescing

2001-10-07 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: Clearly this would also be very applicable to non-Gigabit cards, but the only one we use is the FXP, and the FXP driver is very poorly structured for being able to do this type of thing (I Oh, bah. The fxp clearly has the

Re: my dc now doesn't work

2001-10-11 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: After the last cvsup (changes from 29 of september) i've got dead dc (21143 based NIC). LEDs are dead, but card is successfully probed and attached, so i have device but can't use it. What should i send to help investigate this

Re: FYI: Panic at in_pcbremlists()

2001-12-21 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: I got a panic with today's current. I don't know I can reproduce this panic or not... This probably is in: 1015if (LIST_FIRST(phd-phd_pcblist) == NULL) { 1016LIST_REMOVE(phd,

Re: today's -current xl0 wigs out

2000-10-15 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: Well getting rid of the leftover splimp() didn't clear up the problem. Maybe we need to move the mtx_init and XL_LOCK up to where the splimp() was. Change the last XL_LOCK in xl_intr() into an XL_UNLOCK. -- Jonathan To

Re: CURRENT is freezing again ...

2000-11-18 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:30:02 -0800 (PST), John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: what the WITNESS code does is perform extra checks on mutex enter's and exit's to ensure that we aren't handling mutexes in such a way

Re: world broken: mbuf.h:120: `MSIZE' undeclared here

2000-11-26 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 01:06:12PM -0600, Michael Harnois wrote: On 26 Nov 2000 12:48:48 -0600, Michael Harnois [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: OK, I think I have it now. Remove sys/mbuf.h and change machine/mutex.h to sys/mutex.h. Except that the kernel won't build if sys/mbuf.h isn't

Re: world broken: mbuf.h:120: `MSIZE' undeclared here

2000-11-26 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 11:23:45AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: * Jonathan Lemon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001126 11:18] wrote: On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 01:06:12PM -0600, Michael Harnois wrote: On 26 Nov 2000 12:48:48 -0600, Michael Harnois [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: OK, I think I have

Re: make buildworld broken ... CVS from today ...

2000-11-26 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: Just tried to do a buildworld, got as far as netstat before it barf'd with: === usr.bin/netstat cc -O -pipe -Wall -DIPSEC -DINET6 -DIPSEC -I/usr/obj/usr/local/base/src/i386/usr/include -c

Re: XXX driver didn't initialize queue mtx

2001-01-27 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 12:36:41PM -0800, Matthew Jacob wrote: Oh, I suppose, I did find that... well, mainly I wanted the person who made the change to actually broadcast to NIC maintainers what the expectations were... The

Re: XXX driver didn't initialize queue mtx

2001-01-27 Thread Jonathan Lemon
... cvs annotate is your friend. The code was added in revision 1.95 of src/sys/net/if.c by Jonathan Lemon. Please talk to him about what should be done to fix the drivers. Actually, the new check appears to be incorrect, as seen by the code fragments below: #define MTX_DEF

Re: fix for a bug that causes a panic in the udp_pcblist() sysctl

2002-06-21 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: Jeffrey Hsu wrote: Can you try this fix instead? It's based on a similar patch Jonathan Lemon sent to me for a similar spot in tcp_subr.c. Well yes, this works too, since it produces the same code as with my fix. But yours

Re: KSE status report

2002-07-02 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ju lian Elischer writes: The big problem at the moment is that something in the source tree as a whole, and probably something that came in with KSE is stopping us from successfully compiling a

additional queue macro

2002-07-02 Thread Jonathan Lemon
What do people think about adding the following macro to sys/queue.h? (I don't care much about the name, just the functionality) #define TAILQ_FOREACH_TMP(var, tmp, head, field) \ for ((var) = TAILQ_FIRST((head));\

Re: additional queue macro

2002-07-02 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 12:58:24PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Jonathan Lemon wrote: What do people think about adding the following macro to sys/queue.h? (I don't care much about the name, just the functionality) #define TAILQ_FOREACH_TMP(var, tmp, head

Re: Timeout and SMP race

2002-07-04 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: in RELENG_4, when one calls callout_stop() (not nested in softclock execute path , I am not talking about this case), after it returns, he can believe that the callout is truely stopped, however in CURRENT, this assumption is

Re: Timeout and SMP race

2002-07-04 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 02:38:08AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Jonathan Lemon wrote: In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: in RELENG_4, when one calls callout_stop() (not nested in softclock execute path , I am not talking about

Re: i386 trap code

2002-07-05 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: sorry for a bit OT, does anyone see this in_vm86call crazy global variable? it prevents two CPUs to trap into VM86 model :( Um, unfortunately, this is by design. Most (all?) BIOSen code are single threaded, and the vm86 code

Re: i386 trap code

2002-07-06 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 05:15:26AM -0700, David Xu wrote: I don't know how DOS emulating program works, but if it let DOS program run in VM86 mode, the in_vm86call global flag can prevent one CPU to run VM86 BIOS call and another CPU run DOS VM86 code, because it can not distinct which CPU

Re: i386 trap code

2002-07-07 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 11:59:50PM -0700, David Xu wrote: Jonthan, I just use DOS program as an example, for any program, if it wants to go into VM86 mode, it is very easy, just calls i386_vm86() to initailize its VM86 pcb extension, setups some memory area, then call sigreturn() to turn

Re: tail -f kernel panic

2001-02-23 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: I found it is quite easy to panic a -current kernel with 2 login windows. In window 1 do a "tail -f /tmp/world.out" In window 2 do a "tail -f /tmp/world.out" In window 2 do "^C" to break out of tail -f In window 1 do "^C" to

Re: tail -f kernel panic

2001-02-23 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: I found it is quite easy to panic a -current kernel with 2 login windows. In window 1 do a "tail -f /tmp/world.out" In window 2 do a "tail -f /tmp/world.out" In window 2 do "^C" to break out of tail -f In window 1 do "^C" to

Re: [PATCH] for linux_connect (ugly)

2001-02-27 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: Some background: when a socket is connected in non-blocking mode and the connect does not immediately succeed (i.e. EINPROGRESS is returned), linux obviously will return the value getsockopt(...SO_ERROR...) on the socket would

DNS kqread (kq in general)

2001-02-28 Thread Jonathan Lemon
I"ve committed a fix for the problem where DNS hangs or takes a long time to resolve (the process gets stuck in kqread). In the last kqueue update, I added a new filter-specific flag to the read/write filters, which allows the filter to specify its own read/write watermarks. However, since

Re: resolver problem with shared linked programs

2001-02-28 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: At first I thought something is wrong with my ipv6 dns setup, but it turned out that if a program is linked shared the first getipnodebyaddr() it does will succeed, but the rest fail. For a staticly linked program all of them

** HEADS UP **

2001-03-12 Thread Jonathan Lemon
I committed a miibus'ified fxp driver to the tree today, and made it the default. If you compile fxp into your kernel statically, you will also need "device miibus" as well, if it isn't there already. If you notice any problems with the driver (things that were working and are not working now),

Re: ** HEADS UP **

2001-03-15 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 11:13:09AM -0600, Peter Schultz wrote: On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 05:52:00PM -0600, Jonathan Lemon wrote: I committed a miibus'ified fxp driver to the tree today, and made it the default. If you compile fxp into your kernel statically, you will also need "d

Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/gen glob.c

2001-03-16 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 03:58:13PM -0500, Will Andrews wrote: On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 11:05:20AM -0800, Jonathan Lemon wrote: Log: Bump MAX_GLOBENTRIES up to 16384, so it is a power of two. Add some comments explaining that this is an arbitrary limit. Why shouldn't

Re: SOMAXCONN -- not tunable?

2001-04-12 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: Here are patches to make SOMAXCONN tunable from the config files. Right now, it's not possible to override SOMAXCONN. sysctl -w kern.ipc.somxconn=1024 SOMAXCONN is just a compile time default, and yes it is not

Re: panic in fxp driver

2001-05-02 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: The fxp driver is broken in a lot of places. For example, in fxp_intr(): for (txp = sc-cbl_first; sc-tx_queued (txp-cb_status FXP_CB_STATUS_C) != 0;

Re: panic in fxp driver

2001-05-03 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: ] I would be quite interested in knowing just how you manage ] to accomplish that, given that all the transmit control buffers ] are arranged in a circular linked list: ] ] fxp_init(void *xsc) ] { ] ... ]

Re: panic in fxp driver

2001-05-05 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 04:04:27PM -0700, Archie Cobbs wrote: Jonathan Lemon writes: Please consider the case where there are two mbuf chains being transmitted, which look like this: Um. Not Possible. I thought m_copypacket() of a cluster mbuf would yield exactly this situation

Re: tail -f over NFS in -stable

2001-05-25 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: Blast from the past. This patch seemed reasonable to me at the time, but I notice you didn't commit it. Any reason why? The issue has just come up again on -questions. It shouldn't be needed. Instead, the following logic

Re: New Mbuf Allocator (some graphs)

2001-06-15 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 06:54:21PM -0400, Bosko Milekic wrote: Hi Folks, Here are some performance results. Keep in mind that we're still under Giant. http://people.freebsd.org/~bmilekic/code/mb_alloc/results.html Just for comparision, 6-way results are at:

Re: New Mbuf Allocator (some graphs)

2001-06-15 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 07:44:59PM -0400, Bosko Milekic wrote: On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 06:32:55PM -0500, Jonathan Lemon wrote: On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 06:54:21PM -0400, Bosko Milekic wrote: Hi Folks, Here are some performance results. Keep in mind that we're still under

Re: New Mbuf Allocator (some graphs)

2001-06-15 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 07:44:59PM -0400, Bosko Milekic wrote: Here are some performance results. Keep in mind that we're still under Giant. http://people.freebsd.org/~bmilekic/code/mb_alloc/results.html Just for comparision, 6-way results are at:

Re: vm86 problem in -CURRENT

2001-07-18 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: As far as I understand, the entire 1M bytes of lower physical memory is supposed to be mapped when vm86_intcall() is run. Apparently 0xc, where the video BIOS ROM resides, is mapped OK. But, somehow 0xa, where the

fxp SCB timeout problems [FIX]

2001-08-26 Thread Jonathan Lemon
I believe that I have a real fix for the SCB timeout problems that have been plauging users of recent Intel fxp boards. If you have a board that uses the Intel ICH2/ICH2-M chipset (usually 815E style boards) and feel comfortable applying patches to the system, please contact me to test a

Re: Odd TCP glitches in new currents

1999-12-21 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Dec 12, 1999 at 04:00:00PM -0500, Garrett Wollman wrote: On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 12:50:50 -0800 (PST), Matthew Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I have NOT tested this fix yet, so I don't know if it works, but I believe the problem is that on high speed networks the milliscond round

Re: Odd TCP glitches in new currents

1999-12-22 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Dec 12, 1999 at 11:37:42AM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote: I finally tracked it down. The loss is occuring in the link between two of my switches. The link goes across my apartment - about 60 feet of Cat-5 cable. That should be well within spec (you are supposed to be able

Re: Woa! May have found something - 'rl' driver and small packets (was Re: Odd TCP glitches in new currents)

1999-12-22 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Dec 12, 1999 at 01:41:04AM -0500, Bill Paul wrote: Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, Matthew Dillon had to walk into mine and say: I'm adding Bill Paul to the list specifically. Hmm. Now this is odd! I think I may have found something! All

Re: feedback on CD install of 4.0-RC2

2000-02-19 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: Kai Gro├čjohann wrote: "Jordan K. Hubbard" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I really kinda wish you'd point them to Novice^H^H^H^H^HStandard instead since it does more than be a bit more verbose, it also makes sure that all the

Re: gcc

1999-03-01 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/15359.920308...@critter.freebsd.dk you write: In message 199903011709.jaa48...@vashon.polstra.com, John Polstra writes: In article 31122.920241...@zippy.cdrom.com, Jordan K. Hubbard j...@zippy.cdrom.com wrote: I'd personally be happy with an egcs that just

Re: gcc

1999-03-01 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Mar 03, 1999 at 06:02:37AM +0100, Assar Westerlund wrote: Jonathan Lemon jle...@americantv.com writes: How about getting profiling working for ELF kernels before before completely abandoning a.out? There are patches for that in kern/9413 but I haven't got any feedback on them at all

Re: FBSDBOOT.EXE

1999-05-17 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/006201bea0ae$7e656340$0d787...@apex.tapang you write: Mike, Thanks for trying fbsdboot.exe. I need more information to fix it. I would like to fix it, so please describe exactly what the problem is. What do you mean by the need to reboot the system to

Re: FBSDBOOT.EXE

1999-05-18 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On May 05, 1999 at 05:00:16PM -0700, Carlos C. Tapang wrote: In a nutshell, there is a table of interrupt vectors which is set by the BIOS at boot time, which are used by the loader (and by the FreeBSD kernel, if VM86 is turned on). Thanks, Jonathan. Are any of the following TRUE? 1.

Re: FBSDBOOT.EXE

1999-05-19 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On May 05, 1999 at 03:38:05AM -0400, Jerry Alexandratos wrote: Jonathan Lemon jle...@americantv.com says: : : Not true. VM86 is also required to support VESA. Also, it is used : for reliable memory detection (which is why I want to make it mandatory). : No more My Stinkpad only detected

Re: FBSDBOOT.EXE

1999-05-19 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On May 05, 1999 at 12:27:31PM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: The issue here is that the BIOS will tell us how much memory we are _allowed_to_use_, which is not always the same as the amount of physical memory present in the system. Some memory may be (is sometimes) reserved for use by eg.

Request for testers; removing VM86 as an option.

1999-05-27 Thread Jonathan Lemon
I have a patch that reworks the memory calculation at bootup, and correctly obtains the physical memory map from the BIOS using the INT 15, AX=E820 call. This should allow correct operation on machines which reserve certain segments of memory for non-OS use (ThinkPads). It can also preserve

Re: 4-way SMP broken ?

1999-06-09 Thread Jonathan Lemon
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/199906092225.saa01...@par28.ma.ikos.com you write: Also in trying to figure this out I looked at the DRAM probing code in /usr/src/sys/i386/i386/machdep.c:getmemsize(), and it looks as though it's not safe for 2GB (e.g. comparisons of byte addresses against