panic (fault on nofault)

Hi I turned softupdates back on recently. This panic is very repeatable: turn off the computer without shutting down. It panics shortly after the background fsck starts. The kernel and world are recent and in sync: [brane-dead] ~ # uname -a FreeBSD brane-dead.digs.iafrica.com 5.0-CURRENT FreeB

Panic induced by background fsck.

Hi Several seconds into background fsck, this happens. It's easily repeatable by enabling background fsck and booting after an unclean shutdown. Kernel is 2003-02-19 from source checked out on that day (SMP). The filesystems are UFS1 with softupdates. panic: vm_fault: fault on nofault entry, ad

LOR in pcn driver (and pcn driver may be broken)

Hi I got this yesterday on my SMP system current as of yesterday: pcn0: port 0xe800-0xe81f mem 0xea001000-0xea00101f irq 16 at device 9.0 on pci0 ../../../vm/uma_core.c:1330: could sleep with "pcn0" locked from ../../../pci/if_pcn.c:524 ../../../vm/uma_core.c:1330: could sleep with "pcn0" lock

SIO interrupt level buffer overflows

Hi I've had a resurgence of these starting a few days ago. Basically whenever there is fairly heavy IO (I mean as heavy as IO can get on a COM port) the console starts spewing these messages. [brane-dead] ~ # uptime 5:05PM up 1 day, 8:39, 1 user, load averages: 2.02, 2.10, 2.09 [brane-dead] ~

Re: Plea for base system trim

Subscriber wrote: > Would the powers that be please consider removing sendmail, > bind and openssl from the base system, as was done for perl > with 5.0? There are /etc/make.conf variables to control this so you can do it for yourself: #NO_BIND= true# do not build BIND #NO_OPENSSH=t

Re: I'm impressed, but ...

Philip Paeps wrote: > Hi guys - > > I accidently upgraded my workstation to -CURRENT over the weekend (forgot a > tag=RELENG_4 in my supfile and let it cook). It being a workstation and > containing no critical data, I decided to just stick with it and give it a go . > > The machine's been runn

Re: Any ideas at all about network problem?

Brad Knowles wrote: > At 12:55 AM -0500 2002/12/02, Craig Reyenga wrote: > > > I just tried a 3com 3c905 NIC (my roommate's) and it _also_ > > transfers slowly (about 3.5MB/sec, so just under half of what i used to > > get with my realtek in -stable). It also spit out a few messages: > >

Re: Any ideas at all about network problem?

Joshua Goodall wrote: > On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:32:58AM +0100, Brad Knowles wrote: > > At 12:31 PM +0200 2002/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > The two machines involved are connected by a crossover cable: > > > > I've heard of lots of problems with machines using cross-over > > c

Re: Any ideas at all about network problem?

Brad Knowles wrote: > At 12:31 PM +0200 2002/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > The two machines involved are connected by a crossover cable: > > I've heard of lots of problems with machines using cross-over > cables. Can you connect the machines through a switch, and ensure > that t

sio and ed woes

Hi I have a problem getting CURRENT to find my ISA SMC Ultra ethernet card. No matter what I do I can't stop the kernel finding a third sio device on top of the memory and interrupt that the ed card occupies. The kernel correctly registers its surprise at finding the third sio device since no hi

Re: sio and ed woes - ACPI hallucinating

Bruce Evans wrote: > On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I have a problem getting CURRENT to find my ISA SMC Ultra ethernet > > card. No matter what I do I can't stop the kernel finding a third > > sio device on top of the memory and interrupt that the ed card > > occupies. The ke