Re: mlterm 3.9.3 Failed to open pty

2024-10-04 Thread Mayuresh
On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 08:30:57PM +0530, Mayuresh wrote: > On NetBSD 9.2, and64, recent pkgsrc, modular x11, mlterm 3.9.2, I am > getting these errors. No terminal opens just these two messages in the > log. Other terminals like xterm open fine. > > Jul 19 14:35:59[5802] Failed to open pty >

Re: [10.0_STABLE] Hard lock

2024-10-04 Thread Rin Okuyama
This ticket is for kernel-side altq(4), not for userland altqd(8). If your kernel is also updated, I have no idea :( If you can reproduce the problem within, say, few hours, LOCKDEBUG should be useful. Temporarily performance regression is much better than untrackable crashes, IMO... Thanks, rin

Re: mlterm 3.9.3 Failed to open pty

2024-10-04 Thread Martin Husemann
On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 04:34:59PM +0530, Mayuresh wrote: > Reviving this old thread [1] that resulted in this PR [2] that was closed. The PR is not closed, but "analyzed". It seems to be unclear why the Makefile hack to override autoconf does seem to work for some builds but not for others. It w

Re: [10.0_STABLE] Hard lock

2024-10-04 Thread BERTRAND Joël
Rin Okuyama a écrit : > Hi, > > altq(4) for netbsd-10 was updated just recently. > > What happens if you apply these fixes (or just update to > today's netbsd-10)? > > http://releng.netbsd.org/cgi-bin/req-10.cgi?show=917 I have upgraded my tree this morning and I have seen that altqd wa

[10.0_STABLE] Hard lock

2024-10-04 Thread BERTRAND Joël
Hello, I'm using NetBSD 10.0 (stable) as rolling release on my main server. This server runs a customized kernel (amd64). Here is the diff between GENERIC and my kernel: legendre# diff -u GENERIC CUSTOM ... powernow0 at cpu0 # AMD PowerNow! and Cool'n'Quiet (non-ACPI

Re: [netbsd-10] src bus_dma.9 copyedit

2024-10-04 Thread Valery Ushakov
On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 18:58:39 +, Van Ly wrote: > The final sentence in the block for BUS_DMA_NOCACHE and > BUS_DMA_PREFECTCHABLE need to be swapped, see pink and yellow > highlight below > > => http://sdf.org/~van.ly/art/bus-dma-9-copyedit.jpeg I don't think so. "Exclusive" here means th

Re: [netbsd-10] src bus_dma.9 copyedit

2024-10-04 Thread Van Ly
Valery Ushakov writes: > On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 18:58:39 +, Van Ly wrote: > >> => http://sdf.org/~van.ly/art/bus-dma-9-copyedit.jpeg > > I don't think so. "Exclusive" here means that the given flag is > mutually exclusive with another flag. It doesn't make sense to > combine nocache and

Re: [10.0_STABLE] Hard lock

2024-10-04 Thread Rin Okuyama
Hi, altq(4) for netbsd-10 was updated just recently. What happens if you apply these fixes (or just update to today's netbsd-10)? http://releng.netbsd.org/cgi-bin/req-10.cgi?show=917 Thanks, rin On 2024/10/04 17:37, BERTRAND Joël wrote: Hello, I'm using NetBSD 10.0 (stable)

Re: [10.0_STABLE] Hard lock

2024-10-04 Thread Taylor R Campbell
> Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2024 10:37:24 +0200 > From: BERTRAND Joël > > -tco* at tcoichbus? # TCO watch dog timer > +tco* at ichlpcib?# TCO watch dog timer This a curious change to make; what prompted it? Are you using the watchdog timer? I'm slightly surprised this builds a

[netbsd-10] src bus_dma.9 copyedit

2024-10-04 Thread Van Ly
Hello, The final sentence in the block for BUS_DMA_NOCACHE and BUS_DMA_PREFECTCHABLE need to be swapped, see pink and yellow highlight below => http://sdf.org/~van.ly/art/bus-dma-9-copyedit.jpeg -- vl