Vmware has started hanging on current versions of current. The binary
start properly, but when I try and start one of my virtual machines the
process hangs in "devbuf". The disk seems to access periodically. I
tried ktracing the process but it didn't get very far. Has anyone seen
this behavior
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 12:42:49AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> step 1: get proc structure broken up, with system still running: done (twice)
Can you post your diff to the proc structure?
...
> -random_ioctl(dev_t dev, u_long cmd, caddr_t addr, int flags, struct proc *p)
> +random_ioctl(dev
:
:Firstly, I have no intention of committing this patch anytime soon,
:but I think you are mistaken in what it does. Unless I messed up,
:it will never allow "uninterruptible" mounts to be interrupted by
Oops, sorry about that. Today is not one of my better days.
Some commits have been in the tree for a month now, and I'm wondering if
anyone has had any problem. Please let me know if you have had any
timeouts, mode recognition problems, or anything similar. It would be nice
to get the commits moved into -stable if everything is working well,
especially
On 22-Jul-01 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Interestingly, "sysctl -a -N" spits out names, but then seems to fall
>> into a rut:
>>
> []
>> net.inet.udp.getcred
>> net.inet.accf.unloadable
>> net.inet.accf.373
>> net.inet.accf.373
>> net.inet.accf.373
> []
>
>> Looks as if it's looping
On 23-Jul-01 Julian Elischer wrote:
> Why does the mutex not link blocked processes though the
> sleep queue linked list entry? Why does it use the run queue entry?
> In KSEs the sleep queue and run queue enties go into different
> sub structures and ahve different types so this breaks...
> do I
>
> No, I haven't gone mad and decided to make all NFS mounts soft
> to "fix" all NFS problems :-)
>
I once asked Bob Lyon (who is still at Legato) about what he thought needed to
happen to 'fix' NFS (after all, it was he and Rusty Sandberg who did the
initial work on all this).
His response was
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matt Dillon writes:
> Ian, please don't do this. The whole point of having an uninterruptable
> mount is so the client can survive a server reboot or network failure.
> Doing this destroys uninterruptable semantics.
Firstly, I have no intention of committing
On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 10:18:06AM -0700, Brooks Davis wrote:
> I've been seeing the following failure in my installworlds for the past
> week or so. I've been getting around it with make -k, but it's kinda
> annoying.
I've looked around some more and I think I know what's going on. The
problem
Add a data point for me using -current on my laptop in order to take
advantage of cardbus support (thanks Warner!). I update about once every
two months, and so far my systems has been running flawlessly.
All our other FreeBSD systems (~60) are running various incarnations
of -stable...
regards
Ian, please don't do this. The whole point of having an uninterruptable
mount is so the client can survive a server reboot or network failure.
Doing this destroys uninterruptable semantics.
If you want to flag uninterruptable mounts in a special way when someone
tries to umount th
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Maxim Sobolev writes:
>I found that after introduction of the new RPC NFS client is no longer
>able to recover from server crash (both cluent and server are 5-CURRENT
>systems). After a well known `nfs server not responding' message, client
>hangs and even though se
Hi,
I found that after introduction of the new RPC NFS client is no longer
able to recover from server crash (both cluent and server are 5-CURRENT
systems). After a well known `nfs server not responding' message, client
hangs and even though server comes back in a minute or two it doesn't
recover
On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 10:59:43PM -0700, Mike Smith wrote:
> > Hi.
> > I'm running -current whose source tree was checked out as
> > TZ=UTC cvs co -D'2001-07-12' src
> > on VAIO PCG-C1XE(PentiumII with 64Mbytes of RAM)
> > and have some problems:
> >
> > 1. Acpica modules hangs in
> > Acp
> Why does the mutex not link blocked processes though the
> sleep queue linked list entry? Why does it use the run queue entry?
Because in some cases its necessary for a process to acquire
mutexes while its on the sleep queue. If they used the same
linkage the queues would get corrupted.
> In
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 11:54:34 +0200, Anton Berezin wrote:
> > Is this a large task?
>
> I guess it depends upon the experience of the person doing that. For
> me, yes, it is.
Hmmm, you do yourself a disservice. Mark Murray, rom whom you've taken
over this responsibility, had quite a bit of e
On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 02:04:21PM -0400, David Hill wrote:
> I am suggesting the import of Perl 5.6.1 into -CURRENT before -CURRENT
> is -STABLE.
It will be done before -current is -stable.
> Is this a large task?
I guess it depends upon the experience of the person doing that. For
me, yes, i
Why does the mutex not link blocked processes though the
sleep queue linked list entry? Why does it use the run queue entry?
In KSEs the sleep queue and run queue enties go into different
sub structures and ahve different types so this breaks...
do I need to do something sleazy or can I just link
Despite my silence on the topic recently I've been active.
step 1: get proc structure broken up, with system still running: done (twice)
step 2: push the 'thread' structure into the mutex structure
and the sleep queue, and then propogate all the required changes all the
way up the kernel.
step
19 matches
Mail list logo
