On 9/07/2015 7:20 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2015/07/08 20:00, Max Fillinger wrote:
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 03:53:46PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
I'm looking for testers for this diff. This should be safe to run on
amd64, i386 and sparc64. But has been reported to lock up i386
machines.
> Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 16:35:09 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Mark Kettenis
>
> > Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 15:17:46 +0100
> > From: Stuart Henderson
> >
> > On 2015/07/08 15:53, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > Index: uvm_map.c
> > ..
> > > @@ -2466,8 +2470,7 @@ uvm_map_teardown(struct vm_map *map)
> > > if (
A further success story on an amd64 Core2 laptop. I built an entire
release with no complications. Suspend/Hibernate/Resume work fine as well.
OpenBSD 5.8-beta (GENERIC.MP) #451: Wed Jul 8 16:33:38 CEST 2015
t...@miraculix.home:/sys/arch/amd64/compile/GENERIC.MP
real mem = 2634596352 (2512
On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 22:20:49 +0100
Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2015/07/08 20:00, Max Fillinger wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 03:53:46PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > I'm looking for testers for this diff. This should be safe to
> > > run on amd64, i386 and sparc64. But has been reporte
On 2015/07/08 20:00, Max Fillinger wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 03:53:46PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > I'm looking for testers for this diff. This should be safe to run on
> > amd64, i386 and sparc64. But has been reported to lock up i386
> > machines. I can't reproduce this on any of my
Mark Kettenis writes:
> I'm looking for testers for this diff. This should be safe to run on
> amd64, i386 and sparc64. But has been reported to lock up i386
> machines. I can't reproduce this on any of my own systems. So I'm
> looking for help. I'm looking for people that are able to build
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 03:53:46PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> I'm looking for testers for this diff. This should be safe to run on
> amd64, i386 and sparc64. But has been reported to lock up i386
> machines. I can't reproduce this on any of my own systems. So I'm
> looking for help. I'm loo
> Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 15:17:46 +0100
> From: Stuart Henderson
>
> On 2015/07/08 15:53, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Index: uvm_map.c
> ..
> > @@ -2466,8 +2470,7 @@ uvm_map_teardown(struct vm_map *map)
> > if ((entry = RB_ROOT(&map->addr)) != NULL)
> > DEAD_ENTRY_PUSH(&dead_entries,
On 2015/07/08 15:53, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> Index: uvm_map.c
..
> @@ -2466,8 +2470,7 @@ uvm_map_teardown(struct vm_map *map)
> if ((entry = RB_ROOT(&map->addr)) != NULL)
> DEAD_ENTRY_PUSH(&dead_entries, entry);
> while (entry != NULL) {
> - if (waitok)
> -
I'm looking for testers for this diff. This should be safe to run on
amd64, i386 and sparc64. But has been reported to lock up i386
machines. I can't reproduce this on any of my own systems. So I'm
looking for help. I'm looking for people that are able to build a
kernel with this diff and the
10 matches
Mail list logo
