Re: swapcontext rewrite broke some software

On 2013/04/16 21:24, Oliver Pinter wrote: Hi! After this commit: commit ac0cfc7fcb1b51ee6aeacfd676fa6dfbe11eefb5 Author: davidxu Date: Wed Apr 10 02:40:03 2013 + swapcontext wrapper can not be implemented in C, the stack pointer saved in the context becomes invalid when the fu

IPv6 bind fails with 49 (#define EADDRNOTAVAIL 49 /* Can't assign requested address */)

I have a ipv6 interface(ping6 to a remove ipv6 works) when I try to bind to this address through a socket program "sobind" fails with "49" as return value. If I give "saddr6.sin6_addr = in6addr_any;" sobind works. Any idea what could be going wrong here? roundhay# ifconfig cxgbe1 cxgbe1: flag

Re: ipfilter(4) needs maintainer

On 15 April 2013 16:12, Cy Schubert wrote: > The existing license isn't that BSD-friendly either, which is why it lives > in contrib/. I think the 5.1.X GPLv2 is about the same friendliness as > Darren's IPF 4.1.X license. As long as it's not in GENERIC should be fine. > A person can always load i

Re: ipfilter(4) needs maintainer

In message , Ed Maste writes: > On 15 April 2013 16:12, Cy Schubert wrote: > > The existing license isn't that BSD-friendly either, which is why it lives > > in contrib/. I think the 5.1.X GPLv2 is about the same friendliness as > > Darren's IPF 4.1.X license. As long as it's not in GENERIC shoul

Re: Atheros 9287 - no carrier . revision 249623.

Sigh. Someone's broken the bus or interrupt handling code between -9 and -head. Or ACPI, for all I know. It may even be something to do with RFKILL. Can you please boot verbosely, both on -9 and -head? you don't have to do anything - just capture the logfile /var/run/dmesg.boot and attach them he

Re: Atheros 9287 - no carrier . revision 249623.

Ok, the relevant / interesting bit:s. John, any ideas? HEAD: pcib2: irq 18 at device 28.2 on pci0 pcib0: allocated type 3 (0xe050-0xe05f) for rid 20 of pcib2 pcib2: domain0 pcib2: secondary bus 10 pcib2: subordinate bus 10 pcib2: memory decode 0xe050-0xe

Re: Atheros 9287 - no carrier . revision 249623.

On Thursday, April 18, 2013 11:22:38 am Adrian Chadd wrote: > Ok, the relevant / interesting bit:s. John, any ideas? Only that this means absolutely nothing? These are the values the BIOS wrote into the registers which we use as hints about whether or not ACPI lies about which interrupts are us

Re: Atheros 9287 - no carrier . revision 249623.

... Why would it differ for the same machine, different kernel? Adrian Sent from my Palm Pre on AT&T On Apr 18, 2013 8:40 AM, John Baldwin wrote: On Thursday, April 18, 2013 11:22:38 am Adrian Chadd wrote: > Ok, the relevant / interesting bit:s. John, any ideas? Only t

Re: Atheros 9287 - no carrier . revision 249623.

I tried to check out revision 245031 (only sys/dev/ath) and got a working WiFi. I'll try to find a broken revision. On Thursday 18 April 2013 11:37:17 John Baldwin wrote: > On Thursday, April 18, 2013 11:22:38 am Adrian Chadd wrote: > > Ok, the relevant / interesting bit:s. John, any ideas? > >

Re: Atheros 9287 - no carrier . revision 249623.

On head? Adrian Sent from my Palm Pre on AT&T On Apr 18, 2013 10:06 AM, Artyom Mirgorodskiy wrote: I tried to check out revision 245031 (only sys/dev/ath) and got a working WiFi. I'll try to find a broken revision.   On Thursday 18 April 2013 11:37:17 John

Re: Atheros 9287 - no carrier . revision 249623.

Yes On Thursday 18 April 2013 10:30:33 Adrian Chadd wrote: On head? Adrian Sent from my Palm Pre on AT&T Artyom MirgorodskiyOn Apr 18, 2013 10:06 AM, wrote: I tried to check out revision 245031 (only sys/dev/ath) and got a working WiFi. I'll try to find a bro

Re: Atheros 9287 - no carrier . revision 249623.

Hm, so -HEAD everything else except the wifi code? That's really odd. I updated to -HEAD this morning just to test the AR9287 for you and it was peachy! Adrian On 18 April 2013 10:36, Artyom Mirgorodskiy wrote: > Yes > > > > On Thursday 18 April 2013 10:30:33 Adrian Chadd wrote: > > On head? >

Re: Atheros 9287 - no carrier . revision 249623.

Yes, HEAD everything else except the wifi code (ath). Last working revision is 247286. So problem in revision 247287. On Thursday 18 April 2013 10:42:15 Adrian Chadd wrote: > Hm, so -HEAD everything else except the wifi code? > > That's really odd. I updated to -HEAD this morning just to test th

Re: Atheros 9287 - no carrier . revision 249623.

On Thursday, April 18, 2013 12:41:53 pm Adrian Chadd wrote: > > ... Why would it differ for the same machine, different kernel? I can't tell you why, but if you compare the full dmesg's you will see that several devices all changed their BIOS-assigned IRQs because the BIOS decided to shuffle the

Re: Atheros 9287 - no carrier . revision 249623.

On 18 April 2013 11:58, Artyom Mirgorodskiy wrote: > Yes, HEAD everything else except the wifi code (ath). > > Last working revision is 247286. So problem in revision 247287. That's really odd. It behaves perfectly fine on my system. You've tested 247287 and it breaks? Adrian _

Re: Atheros 9287 - no carrier . revision 249623.

Yes. I tested 247287 and it breaks. On Thursday 18 April 2013 13:31:29 Adrian Chadd wrote: > On 18 April 2013 11:58, Artyom Mirgorodskiy > wrote: > > Yes, HEAD everything else except the wifi code (ath). > > > > Last working revision is 247286. So problem in revision 247287. > > That's really od

Re: Atheros 9287 - no carrier . revision 249623.

On 18 April 2013 13:33, Artyom Mirgorodskiy wrote: > Yes. I tested 247287 and it breaks. Hm. Well, not much changed there. Try going to 247287 (ie, the broken revision), but revert head/sys/dev/ath/ath_hal/ar5416/ar5416_xmit.c to 247286. See if that fixes it. Adrian

Re: Atheros 9287 - no carrier . revision 249623.

Did not work. On Thursday 18 April 2013 13:58:23 Adrian Chadd wrote: > On 18 April 2013 13:33, Artyom Mirgorodskiy > wrote: > > Yes. I tested 247287 and it breaks. > > Hm. > > Well, not much changed there. > > Try going to 247287 (ie, the broken revision), but revert > head/sys/dev/ath/ath_hal

Re: Atheros 9287 - no carrier . revision 249623.

On 18 April 2013 14:43, Artyom Mirgorodskiy wrote: > Did not work. > Hm. Ok. Let's add some debugging: inside of ar5416SetChainMasks(), let's add a printf() at the -end- of the function: ath_hal_printf(ah, "%s: txchainmask=0x%x, rxchainmask=0x%x\n", __func__, AH5416(ah)->ah_tx_chainmask, AH541

Re: Atheros 9287 - no carrier . revision 249623.

On 18 April 2013 15:07, Artyom Mirgorodskiy wrote: > See attached > What the hell? Those masks are really wrong. Try adding this line after it: ath_hal_printf(ah, "%s: pcap rx=0x%x, tx=0x%x; configured rx=0x%x, tx=0x%x\n", __func__, pCap->halRxChainMask, pCap->halTxChainMask, rx_chainmask, tx_c

Re: Atheros 9287 - no carrier . revision 249623.

Hm! I wonder.. Edit if_athvar.h - change sc_rxchainmask and sc_txchainmask in ath_softc to be uint32_t, rather than int. See if that helps. Adrian On 18 April 2013 15:20, Artyom Mirgorodskiy wrote: > See attached > > > > On Thursday 18 April 2013 15:08:36 Adrian Chadd wrote: > >> On 18 April

Re: Atheros 9287 - no carrier . revision 249623.

On 18 April 2013 15:54, Artyom Mirgorodskiy wrote: > Nothing :( Ok, so I wonder now whether we're actually getting the right chainmask at startup. edit if_ath.c, look for 'ath_hal_getrxchainmask()' After the rx/tx chainmask is fetched,a dd this: device_printf(sc->sc_dev, "%s: RX chainmask=0x%x

Re: Atheros 9287 - no carrier . revision 249623.

Nothing :( On Thursday 18 April 2013 15:22:49 Adrian Chadd wrote: > Hm! I wonder.. > > Edit if_athvar.h - change sc_rxchainmask and sc_txchainmask in > ath_softc to be uint32_t, rather than int. > > See if that helps. > > > > Adrian > > On 18 April 2013 15:20, Artyom Mirgorodskiy > wrote: >

Cannot unmount nullfs in current

Hi, I am trying to build some software which uses nanobsd, and mounts/unmounts many nullfs mounts while it runs. I am hitting failures where I cannot unmount nullfs file systems. I cannot figure out why. Here is more info. SYSTEM == I am running amd64, current build at this revision: 10.0

Re: Atheros 9287 - no carrier . revision 249623.

Ok. I'll add some tidyups to head tonight and then add some more verbose logging. I don't have any 64 bit machines to test ar9287 on atm. Sent from my Palm Pre on AT&T On Apr 18, 2013 3:52 PM, Artyom Mirgorodskiy wrote: Nothing :(   On Thursday 18 April 2013 15