On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Ian Dowse wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Baldwin writes:
> >
> >
> >Fair enough, I guess ffs_reload() should just sanity check the values. Any
> >takers?
>
> You could try this (untested). I have to run now, but I can test it
> later as it's easy enough to re
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ian Dowse writes:
>You could try this (untested). I have to run now, but I can test it
>later as it's easy enough to reproduce.
Almost, but I missed the fs_contigdirs field, which was the real
culprit. An updated patch is below; this seems to stop the panics
for me
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Baldwin writes:
>
>
>Fair enough, I guess ffs_reload() should just sanity check the values. Any
>takers?
You could try this (untested). I have to run now, but I can test it
later as it's easy enough to reproduce.
Ian
Index: ffs_vfsops.c
On 23-Apr-01 Ian Dowse wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Warner Losh
> writes:
>>:
>>: Yes, but until such time as we do that we should warn people in UPDATING at
>>: least.
>>:
>>
>>OK, but you won't like the UPDATING entry.
>
> The bug actually looks fairly simple to fix. ffs_reload()
On 23-Apr-01 Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Baldwin writes:
>: Yes, but until such time as we do that we should warn people in UPDATING at
>: least.
>
> 20010411:
> fsck and the kernel were changed to handle some optimizations
> to directory layout. This br
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Baldwin writes:
: I didn't do dirpref and I want to see this fixed as well. :( I just want to
: give people a fighting chance of making it past this change.
Ah. Sorry for directing my grumpiness about the quality of the change
against you.
Warner
To Unsubsc
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Warner Losh writes:
>:
>: Yes, but until such time as we do that we should warn people in UPDATING at
>: least.
>:
>
>OK, but you won't like the UPDATING entry.
The bug actually looks fairly simple to fix. ffs_reload() isn't
checking if the new superblock fields
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Baldwin writes:
: Yes, but until such time as we do that we should warn people in UPDATING at
: least.
20010411:
fsck and the kernel were changed to handle some optimizations
to directory layout. This breaks backward compatbility.
Updat
On 23-Apr-01 Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Baldwin writes:
>:
>: On 23-Apr-01 Warner Losh wrote:
>: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Baldwin writes:
>: >: You need to rebuild fsck and install it and fsck your filesystems. This
>: >: is
>: >: the
>: >: dirpref cha
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Baldwin writes:
:
: On 23-Apr-01 Warner Losh wrote:
: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Baldwin writes:
: >: You need to rebuild fsck and install it and fsck your filesystems. This is
: >: the
: >: dirpref changes biting you. Warner, we probably need an e
On 23-Apr-01 Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Baldwin writes:
>: You need to rebuild fsck and install it and fsck your filesystems. This is
>: the
>: dirpref changes biting you. Warner, we probably need an entry in UPDATING
>: for
>: the dirpref changes that warn people
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mike Smith writes:
> : I assume there's a better fix in the works, so that a "dirpref-touched"
> : disk can be moved back to a pre-dirpref system?
>
> If not, then dirpref should be backed out, imho.
I'd have to agree; this was a pretty poorly-thought-out aspect
In message <03cb01c0cb0b$ce9369a0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Chris Knight" writes:
: I've found the following sequence to be optimal from going from
: pre-dirpref -current to post-dirpref -current and 4-stable to -current:
But that won't work going from a pre-dirpref -stable to a post-dirpref
-currnet b
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mike Smith writes:
: I assume there's a better fix in the works, so that a "dirpref-touched"
: disk can be moved back to a pre-dirpref system?
If not, then dirpref should be backed out, imho.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Baldwin writes:
: You need to rebuild fsck and install it and fsck your filesystems. This is the
: dirpref changes biting you. Warner, we probably need an entry in UPDATING for
: the dirpref changes that warn people to build and install a new fsck before
: boo
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Daniel C. Sobral" writes:
: Chris Knight wrote:
: >
: > I've found the following sequence to be optimal from going from
: > pre-dirpref -current to post-dirpref -current and 4-stable to -current:
: >
: > make buildworld
: > make buildkernel KERNCONF=YOUR_KERNEL_HE
Chris Knight wrote:
>
> I've found the following sequence to be optimal from going from
> pre-dirpref -current to post-dirpref -current and 4-stable to -current:
>
> make buildworld
> make buildkernel KERNCONF=YOUR_KERNEL_HERE
> make installkernel KERNCONF=YOUR_KERNEL_HERE
> make installworld
>
w.aims.com.au
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Baldwin
> Sent: Sunday, 22 April 2001 3:27
> To: David W. Chapman Jr.; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: kernel core
>
>
>
>
On 21-Apr-01 Mike Smith wrote:
>>
>> You need to rebuild fsck and install it and fsck your filesystems. This is
>> the
>> dirpref changes biting you. Warner, we probably need an entry in UPDATING
>> for
>> the dirpref changes that warn people to build and install a new fsck before
>> booting a
>
> You need to rebuild fsck and install it and fsck your filesystems. This is the
> dirpref changes biting you. Warner, we probably need an entry in UPDATING for
> the dirpref changes that warn people to build and install a new fsck before
> booting a dirpref kernel.
Er. This really isn't ve
On 21-Apr-01 David W. Chapman Jr. wrote:
> I just tried to do an installkernel on a new kernel I built and I got the
> same error except the last line changed to
>
> stopped atffs_dirpref+0x210movzbl0(%ECX,%EAX,1),%EAX
>
> Do I have any hope at recovering from this or should I start
PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: kernel core
> Here's an exact error message because I'm sure I wrongly diagnosed it.
>
> Fatal trap 12: pagefault while in kernel mode
> fault code = supervisor read, page not present
> kernel: type 12 tr
ECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 9:08 PM
Subject: RE: kernel core
>
> On 21-Apr-01 David W. Chapman Jr. wrote:
> > I'm gettind kernel core dumps in the weirdest places with a -current
from
> > early today. One place it coredumps is when I r
On 21-Apr-01 David W. Chapman Jr. wrote:
> I'm gettind kernel core dumps in the weirdest places with a -current from
> early today. One place it coredumps is when I run "chsh", another is during
> a certain part of make install on XFree86-4, the same place every time. I
> can get some more deta
24 matches
Mail list logo
