From owner-freebsd-current Thu Oct 15 15:03:48 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA14861 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:03:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mail1.its.rpi.edu (mail1.its.rpi.edu [128.113.100.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA14824 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:03:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.acs.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by mail1.its.rpi.edu (8.8.8/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA24086; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:03:31 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: drosih@pop1.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199810152010.NAA01067@dingo.cdrom.com> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:07:36 -0400 To: Darin Slovitt , Mike Smith From: Garance A Drosihn Subject: Re: Limits Problems ... Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 4:10 PM -0400 10/15/98, Darin Slovitt wrote: >On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, Mike Smith wrote: > >> This is a known bug in 3.0, most commonly affecting laptop users. >> We haven't been able to track down the exact cause of it. > > It's quite interesting that something like this isn't considered a > little more important. This problem is not hitting me, but even as a casual observer on this mailing list it seems clear that several people consider this problem very important. The fact that it is not fixed only means that no one has been able to pin down the problem, it does not mean that people think the problem is unimportant. People have been quite interested in any information which would help pin down the problem, and have been actively working on collecting more information. Note that Mike said "we haven't been ABLE to track down the exact cause", he did *not* say "we haven't felt it was important". Still, the parts of 3.0 which are working are also very important, and I can understand the need to cut an official 3.0 release even though this particular issue has not been resolved. > Update: the problem seems to be gone ... all I did was recompile > the KERNEL using GENERIC and change absolutly nothing. Seems a > little disconserning that customizing the KERNEL actually > introduces nasty side effects, much like this one. Okay, so we now know that "something" in your custom configuration seems to tickle the problem. How about doing a simple diff between the generic kernel and your customized kernel and telling people differences you have? That might suggest some possible testing that you or someone else could do to narrow the problem down further. A simple step like this could be a very useful contribution. --- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or drosih@rpi.edu Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message