On 2017 Dec 14 (Thu) at 11:49:18 +0100 (+0100), Martin Pieuchot wrote: :On 14/12/17(Thu) 11:30, Mark Kettenis wrote: :> > X-Originating-IP: 88.153.7.170 :> > Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 10:30:21 +0100 :> > From: Martin Pieuchot <[email protected]> :> > :> > On 13/12/17(Wed) 19:09, Florian Riehm wrote: :> > > Hi, :> > > :> > > This patch follows bluhm's attempt for a ddb command 'boot reset'. :> > > My first attempt was not architecture aware. :> > > :> > > Tested on i386 by bluhm@ and on amd64 by me. :> > :> > I don't understand why we need to add "boot reset"? To not fix ddb(4) :> > and keep a broken "boot reboot"? If we cannot fix our own code... :> :> Funny you say that given the discussion about if_downall() on icb ;). : :There's nothing funny. There's people not reporting bugs with traceback :to bugs@ and coming around with workaround like that. : :> IIRC "boot reset" is all about avoiding the if_downall() call. And we :> really don't want to skip if_downall() in the "boot reboot". We added :> that call since not stopping the DMA engines of the network cards had :> some very interesting effects when the machine rebooted... : :If if_downall() is a problem, then please show me a traceback where :that's the case. I'd be delighted to fix it :) :
Trace is on bugs, Subject: arm64 panic uvm_fault failed: ffffff80002619b4 with bonus panic: netlock: lock not held -- A truly wise man never plays leapfrog with a unicorn.
