Re: KSE usage, and one forgotten item (PC98)
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Warner Losh wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Julian Elischer writes: > : All looks good.. obviously the logic of what was going on was easy > : enough to pick up :-) > : > : the only bit I didn't see so easily was: > : ... > : @@ -2860,7 +2861,7 @@ > : /* > : * keep the process from being swapped > : */ > : - PHOLD(p); > : + PROC_LOCK(p); > : bzero((void *)bp, sizeof(*bp)); > : bp->bio_cmd = BIO_FORMAT; > : ... > : the replacement of PHOLD with PROC_LOCK().. I'm not sure of what this actualy > : means.. This means that this version of fd.c has been broken :-). > Since I don't know what either PHOLD or PROC_LOCK are, I don't know if > I did this right. Maybe it is bogus. PHOLD() used to hold the user pages in core while the process waited for i/o to complete. The pc98 version of fd.c is rather out of date, so it still rather bogusly does DMA from the address where sys_generic.c:ioctl() copied the user data. This address may be on the kernel stack, so the driver needs to lock down the user pages until the DMA completes. I'm not sure if PROC_LOCK() does this accidentally. It gives a lock that is too strong in most ways. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: KSE usage, and one forgotten item (PC98)
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Julian Elischer writes:
: All looks good.. obviously the logic of what was going on was easy
: enough to pick up :-)
:
: the only bit I didn't see so easily was:
:
: static int
: -fdformat(dev, finfo, p)
: +fdformat(dev, finfo, td)
: dev_t dev;
: struct fd_formb *finfo;
: - struct proc *p;
: + struct thread *td;
: {
: + struct proc *p = td->td_proc;
: fdu_t fdu;
: fd_pfd;
:
: @@ -2860,7 +2861,7 @@
: /*
: * keep the process from being swapped
: */
: - PHOLD(p);
: + PROC_LOCK(p);
: bzero((void *)bp, sizeof(*bp));
: bp->bio_cmd = BIO_FORMAT;
:
: @@ -2898,7 +2899,7 @@
: /*
: * allow the process to be swapped
: */
: - PRELE(p);
: + PROC_UNLOCK(p);
: free(bp, M_TEMP);
: return rv;
: }
:
: the replacement of PHOLD with PROC_LOCK().. I'm not sure of what this actualy
: means..
Since I don't know what either PHOLD or PROC_LOCK are, I don't know if
I did this right. Maybe it is bogus.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: KSE usage, and one forgotten item (PC98)
Warner Losh wrote:
>
> # please excuse this message in English to the traditionally Japanese list.
> # Julians changes broke pc98 builds with his KSE commits.
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Warner Losh writes:
> : Actaully, the issues are that machdep and friends weren't updated.
>
> Please review http://people.freebsd.org/~imp/pc98.diff
>
> and pay special attention to what I did to fd.c. I wasn't sure. The
> rest were mechanical no-brainers.
>
> I booted this on my PC-9821Nr, but had no console compiled with
> kernel. A kernel from before the change also has this problem, so I
> don't know what to think.
>
> Warner
All looks good.. obviously the logic of what was going on was easy
enough to pick up :-)
the only bit I didn't see so easily was:
static int
-fdformat(dev, finfo, p)
+fdformat(dev, finfo, td)
dev_t dev;
struct fd_formb *finfo;
- struct proc *p;
+ struct thread *td;
{
+ struct proc *p = td->td_proc;
fdu_t fdu;
fd_pfd;
@@ -2860,7 +2861,7 @@
/*
* keep the process from being swapped
*/
- PHOLD(p);
+ PROC_LOCK(p);
bzero((void *)bp, sizeof(*bp));
bp->bio_cmd = BIO_FORMAT;
@@ -2898,7 +2899,7 @@
/*
* allow the process to be swapped
*/
- PRELE(p);
+ PROC_UNLOCK(p);
free(bp, M_TEMP);
return rv;
}
the replacement of PHOLD with PROC_LOCK().. I'm not sure of what this actualy
means..
the rest is as you say...mechanical..
--
++ __ _ __
| __--_|\ Julian Elischer | \ U \/ / hard at work in
| / \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] +-->x USA\ a very strange
| ( OZ)\___ ___ | country !
+- X_.---._/presently in San Francisco \_/ \\
v
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: KSE usage, and one forgotten item (PC98)
"P. U. (Uli) Kruppa" wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > I'm wondering how many people have tried running -current with the > > KSE-2 changes in it. I've had only one minor bug report so far. > > (which is either good or bad depending on wheterh it means > > "it all works" or "No-one is using it") > I do run -CURRENT on one of my two private machines since > july and are quite happy with it. > But I don't have the least idea what KSE is or wether I am > using it somehow. I have tried to read the webpages, but > everybody seems to think that the letters KSE are quite self > explanatory. http://www.freebsd.org/~jasone/kse/ > > Sorry. > > Uli. > > *--* > | www.pukruppa.de www.2000d.de | > | Wuppertal - Germany | > *--* -- ++ __ _ __ | __--_|\ Julian Elischer | \ U \/ / hard at work in | / \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] +-->x USA\ a very strange | ( OZ)\___ ___ | country ! +- X_.---._/presently in San Francisco \_/ \\ v To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: KSE usage, and one forgotten item (PC98)
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Julian Elischer wrote: > I'm wondering how many people have tried running -current with the > KSE-2 changes in it. I've had only one minor bug report so far. > (which is either good or bad depending on wheterh it means > "it all works" or "No-one is using it") I do run -CURRENT on one of my two private machines since july and are quite happy with it. But I don't have the least idea what KSE is or wether I am using it somehow. I have tried to read the webpages, but everybody seems to think that the letters KSE are quite self explanatory. Sorry. Uli. *--* | www.pukruppa.de www.2000d.de | | Wuppertal - Germany | *--* To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: KSE usage, and one forgotten item (PC98)
# please excuse this message in English to the traditionally Japanese list. # Julians changes broke pc98 builds with his KSE commits. In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Warner Losh writes: : Actaully, the issues are that machdep and friends weren't updated. Please review http://people.freebsd.org/~imp/pc98.diff and pay special attention to what I did to fd.c. I wasn't sure. The rest were mechanical no-brainers. I booted this on my PC-9821Nr, but had no console compiled with kernel. A kernel from before the change also has this problem, so I don't know what to think. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: KSE usage, and one forgotten item (PC98)
Okay, from -CURRENT fetched at approximately 1320 CDT today, buildworld/installworld were successful, building the kernel was successful, booting failed with the following [copied by hand]: trap 12: page fault in kernel mode cpuid = 1 lapic id = 0100 virt. addr = 0x0 code = supervisor read, page not present ip = 0x8:0xc0231aa6 sp = 0x10:0xd073db10 fp = 0x10:0xd073db48 cs = base = 0x0 limit = 0xf type = 1b dpl = 0x0 pres = 1 def32 = 1 gran = 1 eflags = interrupt enable, resume, IOPL = 0 proc = 156 (nfsd) trap 12 panic: page fault boot cpu#1 synching disks: panic: bdwrite: buffer not busy I am using a Tyan S1696-DLUA SMP Mobo with 512M RAM and dual Pent-II/333 CPUs Julian Elischer wrote: > I'm wondering how many people have tried running -current with the > KSE-2 changes in it. I've had only one minor bug report so far. > (which is either good or bad depending on wheterh it means > "it all works" or "No-one is using it") > > > Peter reminded me that we haven't changed the pc98 files for > netgraph. In nearly all cases the changes will be identical to those > in the i386 files but we have no way of testing them.. > > If a pc98 person can contect me I can help convert anything that is > required to make it work again. jim -- ET has one helluva sense of humor! He's always anal-probing right-wing schizos! POWER TO THE PEOPLE! _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: KSE usage, and one forgotten item (PC98)
Actaully, the issues are that machdep and friends weren't updated. I'm updating now. :-( Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: KSE usage, and one forgotten item (PC98)
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Julian Elischer writes: : They should be (mostly) not specific to i386 unless they have : endian-ness issues (which I think some might) : They are in files, not file.i386. netgraph isn't the issue. machdep hasn't been changed, along with others. I'm working on a patch. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: KSE usage, and one forgotten item (PC98)
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Warner Losh wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Julian >Elischer writes: > : Peter reminded me that we haven't changed the pc98 files for > : netgraph. In nearly all cases the changes will be identical to those > : in the i386 files but we have no way of testing them.. > > Is there a reason that the netgraph files are i386 specific? ummm are they? They should be (mostly) not specific to i386 unless they have endian-ness issues (which I think some might) They are in files, not file.i386. > > I don't see any changes to the files.i386 file related to this, nor in > Makefile.i386. Can you be less vague? Only that we have not built or even tested PC98 support so it probably doesn't work. particularly if it has extra versions of things related to switch() etc. > > I'm building a pc98 kernel now... What has netgraph got to do with it? > > Warner > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: KSE usage, and one forgotten item (PC98)
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 04:18:49PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > I'm wondering how many people have tried running -current with the > > KSE-2 changes in it. I've had only one minor bug report so far. > > IA-64 compiles and runs in the simulator. I didn't upgrade my > i386 or alpha boxes yet. If you don't hear from me, then you > obviously did an excellent job! :-) In this case... Peter did.. :-) > > -- > Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: KSE usage, and one forgotten item (PC98)
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Julian Elischer writes: : Peter reminded me that we haven't changed the pc98 files for : netgraph. In nearly all cases the changes will be identical to those : in the i386 files but we have no way of testing them.. Is there a reason that the netgraph files are i386 specific? I don't see any changes to the files.i386 file related to this, nor in Makefile.i386. Can you be less vague? I'm building a pc98 kernel now... Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: KSE usage, and one forgotten item (PC98)
On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 04:18:49PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > > I'm wondering how many people have tried running -current with the > KSE-2 changes in it. I've had only one minor bug report so far. IA-64 compiles and runs in the simulator. I didn't upgrade my i386 or alpha boxes yet. If you don't hear from me, then you obviously did an excellent job! :-) -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
