David Nugent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>But by browsing through this list I found the thread "sk0: watchdog timeout" >>and the problem described there is quite similiar to what I get here. So >>perhaps this bug in the sk driver is also the cause for my trouble here?! > > Possibly (and even likely). It sounds like a very severe case of the > same thing.
I should add that the system was under quite heavy load doing an "portupgrade". Perhaps that triggered the problem a bit, too. >>Can I somehow use this patch for sk0 _without_ changing everything to >>-current? Acutually, I wanted to stay to 6.1-RELEASE... >> >> > Apparently the timeout problem is fixed in -CURRENT, and will be merged > after 6.1-RELEASE. Enjoy. Sounds good to me. I guess this won't be more than a few days, perhaps 1-2 weeks?! > Tracking -STABLE is a Good Thing, IMHO, quite aside from the security > updates, bugs which don't even affect you right now (but may do > sometime) get fixed, and the -STABLE tag tends to be quite appropriate. I am quite new to FreeBSD and so I am not that familiar with all these things. But I read at some places that -STABLE is not always really stable and should not be used on productive systems. So I thought -RELEASE might be the correct choice for me. But I see your arguments - perhaps I will change my mind and really track -STABLE. > I only ever used -RELEASE media for the initial install. A system I run > at home was originally installed from FreeBSD 3.0-CURRENT, also now > running a mid-Feb 6.1-PRERELEASE, upgraded from sources many many times > over (build world+kernel takes just under 3 days). :-) ;-) On my Pentium2-300 I certainly will not upgrade that often... ;-) But on my other machinese (Athlon XP 2600+, Athlon 64 X2 3800+) building world and kernel is not that time-consumpting any more... :-) Michael _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
