On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 01:54 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> The simplest backtrace to analyze would probably be in the "illegal
> instruction" case. Also,
>
> thread apply all info register
>
> would be helpful too :)
Pasted in below, good luck!
Thread 5 (Thread 21895.5):
eax0x100
On 5/9/2011 1:09 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hallo Steven!
>
> On Mon, 9 May 2011 12:59:27 -0400, seth seth wrote:
>> Thanks for creating the account but unable to login, is
>> flubber.bddebian.comdown?
>
> His whole network is unreachable at the moment. I've already informed
> Barry; he's goi
Richard Braun, le Mon 09 May 2011 13:33:37 +0200, a écrit :
> On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 01:27:32PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > > I'd suggest using natural_t (or unsigned long) too. But then, it can't
> > > be used to address >4 GiB physical memory. Consider expressing physical
> > > memory in p
Richard Braun, le Mon 09 May 2011 10:55:36 +0200, a écrit :
> This RPC lacks a few additional constraints like boundaries, alignment
> and maybe phase.
What do you mean by "phase"?
Samuel
Svante Signell, le Sun 08 May 2011 11:12:25 +0200, a écrit :
> On Sat, 2011-05-07 at 01:54 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Svante Signell, le Thu 05 May 2011 19:11:10 +0200, a écrit :
> > > Backtraces are attached!
> >
> > Could you also run disassemble, so we get the corresponding assembly
> >
On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 19:08 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 18:49 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 18:43 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > Svante Signell, le Mon 09 May 2011 18:33:14 +0200, a écrit :
> > > > Anyway, adding a print statement at eglibc-2.1
On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 18:49 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 18:43 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Svante Signell, le Mon 09 May 2011 18:33:14 +0200, a écrit :
> > > Anyway, adding a print statement at eglibc-2.11.2/mach/msgserver.c
> > > resolved the hang in the configuration
Hallo Steven!
On Mon, 9 May 2011 12:59:27 -0400, seth seth wrote:
> Thanks for creating the account but unable to login, is
> flubber.bddebian.comdown?
His whole network is unreachable at the moment. I've already informed
Barry; he's going to have a look.
Grüße,
Thomas
pgpzYuP8LdDH5.pgp
De
Hi,
Thanks to all for your patience with my newbieness.
me:
> > So it looks as if we have to stop here until a better skilled person
> > appears who is interested in enabling burner drive operation.
Samuel Thibault:
> I'll let it to anybody who has time for this.
After pondering and code reading
On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 18:43 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Svante Signell, le Mon 09 May 2011 18:33:14 +0200, a écrit :
> > Anyway, adding a print statement at eglibc-2.11.2/mach/msgserver.c
> > resolved the hang in the configuration of ghc6-6.10.1
> > +dfsg1/libraries/random :-)
>
> Uh! Did you
Svante Signell, le Mon 09 May 2011 18:33:14 +0200, a écrit :
> Anyway, adding a print statement at eglibc-2.11.2/mach/msgserver.c
> resolved the hang in the configuration of ghc6-6.10.1
> +dfsg1/libraries/random :-)
Uh! Did you try to let the remainder of the build complete?
> Single stepping in
Hi,
Continuing the struggle with the ghc and ruby build problems I stumbled
into finding two kernel (signal) threads in addition to the main (user)
thread. According to Neal on IRC there shouldn't be more than one kernel
thread running. This could be due to some race condition (don't know yet
wher
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 01:27:32PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > I'd suggest using natural_t (or unsigned long) too. But then, it can't
> > be used to address >4 GiB physical memory. Consider expressing physical
> > memory in page frame numbers.
>
> Good idea! But: what about differently size
Hallo!
On Mon, 9 May 2011 13:19:22 +0200, Richard Braun wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 12:17:51PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > Hmm, I guess we don't have anything that is better than using
> > > vm_address_t for physical addresses? At least not in
> > > include/mach/std_types.h, i386/in
Hallo!
On Mon, 9 May 2011 12:17:51 +0200, Samuel Thibault
wrote:
> Thomas Schwinge, le Mon 09 May 2011 11:15:15 +0200, a écrit :
> > > The patches however add a few
> > > kernel RPCs, which we should probably agree on first, at the minimum
> > > that their existence makes sense, so we can reserv
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 12:17:51PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Hmm, I guess we don't have anything that is better than using
> > vm_address_t for physical addresses? At least not in
> > include/mach/std_types.h, i386/include/mach/i386/vm_types.h. Should we?
> > (phys_address_t based on natu
Thomas Schwinge, le Mon 09 May 2011 11:15:15 +0200, a écrit :
> > The patches however add a few
> > kernel RPCs, which we should probably agree on first, at the minimum
> > that their existence makes sense, so we can reserve slots in upstream
> > gnumach. Basically, it's about allocating physicall
Hallo!
On Mon, 9 May 2011 00:07:16 +0200, Samuel Thibault
wrote:
> I've started having a look at Zheng Da's user-level driver integration.
> I've cleaned his tree a bit, and now considering adding patches to
> the debian packages for wider testing.
Great!
I'm not the most knowledgeable person
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 12:07:16AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> I've started having a look at Zheng Da's user-level driver integration.
> I've cleaned his tree a bit, and now considering adding patches to
> the debian packages for wider testing. The patches however add a few
> kernel RPCs, whic
19 matches
Mail list logo
