On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, John Baldwin wrote:
> Hmm, that first one is in sysbeep() (the clk one) Ah!
>
> if (!beeping) {
> /* enable counter2 output to speaker */
> if (pitch) outb(IO_PPI, inb(IO_PPI) | 3);
> beeping = period;
>
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> I did notice that the default Alpha beep is of a much higher frequency
> than the x86 one. Any relation? (long shot... I suppose)
This bug is well known (including by your mailbox). From mail sent to
your mailbox:
% From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jun 18 17
On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 12:33:32PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 23-Sep-01 Wilko Bulte wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 07:40:52PM +0200, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 01:32:28PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On 19-Sep-01 Wilko Bulte wrote:
> >> > > On Tue, Sep
On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 12:33:32PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 23-Sep-01 Wilko Bulte wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 07:40:52PM +0200, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 01:32:28PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On 19-Sep-01 Wilko Bulte wrote:
> >> > > On Tue, Sep
On 23-Sep-01 Wilko Bulte wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 07:40:52PM +0200, Wilko Bulte wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 01:32:28PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
>> >
>> > On 19-Sep-01 Wilko Bulte wrote:
>> > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 03:01:25PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > >> p_
On Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 08:49:29PM +0200, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> Is there any reason to assume that specifying CPUTYPE ev56 has any
> influence on the lock order reversal?
No that I know of. I used to run a -CURRENT DS20 with CPUTYPE=ev56.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsu
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 07:40:52PM +0200, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 01:32:28PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
> >
> > On 19-Sep-01 Wilko Bulte wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 03:01:25PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > >> p_flag to p_sflag which changed its locking s
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 01:32:28PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 19-Sep-01 Wilko Bulte wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 03:01:25PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
...
> >> p_flag to p_sflag which changed its locking semantics.)
> >
> > Another one, on a -current from yesterday, on -alpha:
> >
On 19-Sep-01 Wilko Bulte wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 03:01:25PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
>>
>> On 18-Sep-01 Garrett Wollman wrote:
>> > lock order reversal
>> > 1st 0xd3a5c11c process lock @ ../../../vm/vm_glue.c:469
>> > 2nd 0xc0e3fe30 lockmgr interlock @ ../../../kern/kern_lock.c:239
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 03:01:25PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 18-Sep-01 Garrett Wollman wrote:
> > lock order reversal
> > 1st 0xd3a5c11c process lock @ ../../../vm/vm_glue.c:469
> > 2nd 0xc0e3fe30 lockmgr interlock @ ../../../kern/kern_lock.c:239
> >
> > This is on relatively old (~ th
On 18-Sep-01 Garrett Wollman wrote:
> lock order reversal
> 1st 0xd3a5c11c process lock @ ../../../vm/vm_glue.c:469
> 2nd 0xc0e3fe30 lockmgr interlock @ ../../../kern/kern_lock.c:239
>
> This is on relatively old (~ three months) sources. The first lock is
> from swapout_procs(); I assume the
11 matches
Mail list logo