Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
On 26.04.2017 04:03, Tom Uffner wrote:
I think the most of these panics should be fixed in r315956.
thanks. I'll give it a try and report back as soon as I have a result.
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
https://l
On 26.04.2017 04:03, Tom Uffner wrote:
> Since updating my -current box to 12 several months ago, I have been
> trying to pin down several elusive and probably related panics.
>
> they always manifest a a trap out of rw_wlock_hard()
>
> i am fairly certain that r302409 was stable, revs up through
Since updating my -current box to 12 several months ago, I have been trying to
pin down several elusive and probably related panics.
they always manifest a a trap out of rw_wlock_hard()
i am fairly certain that r302409 was stable, revs up through r306792 may be
stable, or perhaps I just didn't
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 4:36 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Thursday, April 20, 2017 02:29:30 AM Dexuan Cui wrote:
>> > From: John Baldwin [mailto:j...@freebsd.org]
>> > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 02:34
>> > > Can we add the support of "ACPI0004" with the below one-line change?
>> > >
>> > > ac
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218849
Brooks Davis changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |Works As Intended
C
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218849
--- Comment #16 from Joe Barbish ---
This is my objection to waiting for 12.0 before doing this. When 10.0 came out
the removal of the rc.conf method was scheduled to happen at 11.0. Now 3+ years
later 11.0 is out and the rc.conf method is
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218849
--- Comment #15 from Mathieu Arnold ---
(In reply to Joe Barbish from comment #9)
> I see no benefit to dropping rc.conf jail support on a major release over a
> minor release. I both cases you are going to suffer the same consequences of
>
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218849
--- Comment #14 from rai...@ultra-secure.de ---
I think the PTB (powers that be) ultimately decided that it's not in the
interest of the project to have a tool and (and possibly an API) in base to
create jails a la ezjail.
At least, that's
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218849
erdge...@erdgeist.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||erdge...@erdgeist.org
--- C
On Thursday, April 20, 2017 02:29:30 AM Dexuan Cui wrote:
> > From: John Baldwin [mailto:j...@freebsd.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 02:34
> > > Can we add the support of "ACPI0004" with the below one-line change?
> > >
> > > acpi_sysres_probe(device_t dev)
> > > {
> > > -static char
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218849
--- Comment #12 from Ngie Cooper ---
For the sake of maintaining POLA, I recommend not breaking it on a dot-release
and instead throw the switch on ^/head. I am very much in agreement there with
grembo@.
I think it would be a great idea to
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218849
Conrad Meyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||c...@freebsd.org
--- Comment #11 fr
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218849
--- Comment #10 from Michael Gmelin ---
(In reply to Joe Barbish from comment #9)
I tried to give you feedback from real world installations and real world
upgrade procedures, as you claimed ezjail isn't relevant any more.
Even though I a
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218849
--- Comment #9 from Joe Barbish ---
I see no benefit to dropping rc.conf jail support on a major release over a
minor release. I both cases you are going to suffer the same consequences of
NOT heeding the warning you have been getting for t
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218849
--- Comment #8 from Michael Gmelin ---
(In reply to Joe Barbish from comment #7)
As maintainer of sysutils/qjail you might look at this like it. I just know
that we run hundreds of jails using ezjail and breaking that in anything but a
maj
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218849
--- Comment #7 from Joe Barbish ---
In reply to comment # 3 which states
"But I believe the number of ezjail-jails is significant."
This is un-true, since 10.0 was published many ezjail users have been moving to
qjail because qjail uses
On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Eugene M. Zheganin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> regarding all this stir around ALTQ and igb(4), and mentioning that igb(4)
> doesn't have ALTQ in HEAD - I wanted to ask - is this just igb(4) and
> ixgbe(4) that lost ALTQ in HEAD, or is ALTQ being removed totally from
> FreeBSD
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218849
Michael Gmelin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gre...@freebsd.org
--- Comment #6
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218849
Chris Hutchinson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||portmas...@bsdforge.com
--- Com
19 matches
Mail list logo
