TB --- 2011-03-03 01:36:21 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-stable.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-03-03 01:36:21 - starting RELENG_8 tinderbox run for i386/i386
TB --- 2011-03-03 01:36:21 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-03-03 01:36:32 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-03-03 01:36:32 - /usr/bi
TB --- 2011-03-03 01:39:04 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-stable.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-03-03 01:39:04 - starting RELENG_8 tinderbox run for i386/pc98
TB --- 2011-03-03 01:39:04 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-03-03 01:39:23 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-03-03 01:39:23 - /usr/bi
The commits you've applied in the past ~6 hours have broken the
buildkernel piece of the RELENG_8 branch. Please address this ASAP.
2152 03/02 14:19 FreeBSD Tinderbox (4.8K) [releng_8 tinderbox] failure
on amd64/amd64
2153 03/02 15:17 FreeBSD Tinderbox (4.6K) [releng_8 tinderbox] f
TB --- 2011-03-03 00:03:15 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-stable.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-03-03 00:03:15 - starting RELENG_8 tinderbox run for amd64/amd64
TB --- 2011-03-03 00:03:15 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-03-03 00:03:46 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-03-03 00:03:46 - /usr/
`CPU0: local APIC error 0x40"
I get this error on my ThinkPad R400(Intel Core2 T6570).
--
Best regards,
Yanhui
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "free
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> I had a machine deadlock just now and the only thing on the serial
> console was
>
> CPU0: local APIC error 0x40
> CPU1: local APIC error 0x40
>
> prior to it hanging. Anyone know what that error is ? Googling didnt
> really show much definitiv
On 3/2/2011 10:18 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> No, nothing at all. I checked the logs again and nothing unusual
>> leading up to it, nor was anything recorded on the serial console other
>> than that error. Do you think its just a hardware issue?
>
> No, was trying to think if there
On Wednesday, March 02, 2011 8:07:59 am Mike Tancsa wrote:
> On 3/2/2011 7:55 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, the interrupt pins on the each lapic look fine (they all either have a
> > legal vector, are using NMI delivery, or are masked).
> >
> > All of the places that send IPIs have the in
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 02:56:58PM +, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> Author: kib
> Date: Wed Mar 2 14:56:58 2011
> New Revision: 219178
> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/219178
>
> Log:
> Fix a bug in the result of manual assembly.
>
> Reported by:Stefan Grundmann
>
TB --- 2011-03-02 13:43:15 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-stable.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-03-02 13:43:15 - starting RELENG_8 tinderbox run for i386/pc98
TB --- 2011-03-02 13:43:15 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-03-02 13:43:34 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-03-02 13:43:34 - /usr/bi
TB --- 2011-03-02 13:39:20 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-stable.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-03-02 13:39:20 - starting RELENG_8 tinderbox run for i386/i386
TB --- 2011-03-02 13:39:20 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-03-02 13:39:38 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-03-02 13:39:38 - /usr/bi
TB --- 2011-03-02 12:07:12 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-stable.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-03-02 12:07:12 - starting RELENG_8 tinderbox run for amd64/amd64
TB --- 2011-03-02 12:07:12 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-03-02 12:07:44 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-03-02 12:07:44 - /usr/
On 3/2/2011 7:55 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> Hmm, the interrupt pins on the each lapic look fine (they all either have a
> legal vector, are using NMI delivery, or are masked).
>
> All of the places that send IPIs have the interrupt vectors hard-coded as
> constant values in the code.
>
> Unfo
On Tuesday, March 01, 2011 9:32:58 pm Mike Tancsa wrote:
> On 3/1/2011 9:04 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 08:50:17PM -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> >> I had a machine deadlock just now and the only thing on the serial
> >> console was
> >>
> >> CPU0: local APIC error 0x40
> >>
On 02/03/11 06:00 AM, Agarwal, Mayank wrote:
> The following reply was made to PR amd64/117186; it has been noted by GNATS.
>
> From: "Agarwal, Mayank"
> To: ,
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: amd64/117186: [modules] kldload Unsupported file type on STABLE
> amd64
> Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 15:54:00 +0530
>
15 matches
Mail list logo