On 4.6.2022. 21:23, Hrvoje Popovski wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've put this diff in production on clean source from this morning and
> got panic. I'm not 100% sure if it's because of TSO because in a last
> monts i had all kinds of diffs on production boxes.
> Now I will run spanshot maybe clean
If you are running -current and have not updated base recently, you
may run inTO "pkg_add: Unknown option: always-update ".
To fix it, just update to a newer base snapshot.
Stuart Henderson wrote:
> If you are running -current and have not updated base recently, you
> may run inTO "pkg_add: Unknown option: always-update ".
> To fix it, just update to a newer base snapshot.
What happened is that a developer made a change to the pkg tools which
creates completely
Encountered the following panic:
panic: kernel diagnostic assertion "(p->p_flag & P_TIMEOUT) == 0" failed: file
"/usr/src/sys/kern/kern_synch.c", line 373
Stopped at db_enter+0x10: popq%rbp
TIDPIDUID PRFLAGS PFLAGS CPU COMMAND
423109 57118 55 0x3
On 1.6.2022. 11:21, Jan Klemkow wrote:
> I moved the switch to ifconfig(8) in the diff below.
>
> # ifconfig ix0 tso
> # ifconfig ix0 -tso
>
> I named it tso (TCP segment offloading), so I can reuse this switch
> also for the sending part. TSO is the combination of LRO and LSO.
>
> LRO: Large
Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2022/06/04 15:23, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > Stuart Henderson wrote:
> >
> > > If you are running -current and have not updated base recently, you
> > > may run inTO "pkg_add: Unknown option: always-update ".
> > > To fix it, just update to a newer base snapshot.
> >
On 2022/06/04 15:23, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
> > If you are running -current and have not updated base recently, you
> > may run inTO "pkg_add: Unknown option: always-update ".
> > To fix it, just update to a newer base snapshot.
>
>
>
> What happened is that a
> I do not understand why it is believed that people will generate
> better configurations if they split the parts out into different
> files.
I can not speak for "better" configurations as a result of dividing up
the main configuration file. Although I believe it lowers the risk of
mistakenly
On Thu, Jun 02, 2022 at 02:49:43PM +0200, Jan Stary wrote:
> The following wording of dump(8)
> can IMHO be be simplified without any loss:
>
> Rewinding or ejecting tape features after a close operation
> on a tape device depend on the name of the tape unit device used.
>
> I am not
Jason McIntyre wrote:
e> On Thu, Jun 02, 2022 at 02:49:43PM +0200, Jan Stary wrote:
> > The following wording of dump(8)
> > can IMHO be be simplified without any loss:
> >
> > Rewinding or ejecting tape features after a close operation
> > on a tape device depend on the name of the
10 matches
Mail list logo
