From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 31 03:03:21 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF34F16A4CE for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 03:03:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from email07.aon.at (WARSL402PIP8.highway.telekom.at [195.3.96.97]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F008243D54 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 03:03:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from shoesoft@gmx.net) Received: (qmail 115808 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2003 11:03:17 -0000 Received: from m120p030.dipool.highway.telekom.at (HELO ?62.46.4.254?) ([62.46.4.254]) (envelope-sender ) by 172.18.5.236 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 31 Dec 2003 11:03:17 -0000 From: Stefan Ehmann To: Scott Long In-Reply-To: <3FF2A6CC.9010207@freebsd.org> References: <1072618904.757.12.camel@shoeserv.freebsd> <20031230173151.M6634@gamplex.bde.org> <1072794615.775.4.camel@shoeserv.freebsd> <20031231031218.N1268@gamplex.bde.org><3FF2A6CC.9010207@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1072868585.5107.11.camel@shoeserv.freebsd> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:03:06 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: page fault panic tracked down (selwakeuppri()) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:03:22 -0000 On Wed, 2003-12-31 at 11:37, Scott Long wrote: > Stefan Ehmann wrote: > > On Tue, 2003-12-30 at 17:20, Bruce Evans wrote: > > > >>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Stefan Ehmann wrote: > >> > >> > >>>On Tue, 2003-12-30 at 07:56, Bruce Evans wrote: > >>It should be easy to turn off the selwakeuppri() chnages by editing a > >>line or two of selwakeuppri(). From sys_generic.c: > > > > > > Thanks. So I can (hopefully) run a recent CURRENT somewhat stable at > > least until this is resolved. > > > > Does Bruce's hack actually work for you? I'm trying to decide on > whether to make this a show-stopper for the 5.2 release. It worked at least with the 2003.11.09.09.20.00 kernel (>5 hours tested). I upgraded to yesterday's current to see if this runs fine too with that one line change. I'm also testing if it still crashes unpatched just to be sure it wasn't fixed - It's very unlikely but the last current I tested is about 2 weeks old. I'll report this later today.