From owner-freebsd-current  Tue Mar 18 18:31:50 1997
Return-Path: <owner-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA26655
          for current-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 18:31:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from thelab.hub.org (hal-ns1-34.netcom.ca [207.181.94.98])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA26650
          for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 18:31:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from thelab.hub.org (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by thelab.hub.org (8.8.5/8.8.2) with SMTP id WAA17001; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 22:30:23 -0400 (AST)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 22:30:23 -0400 (AST)
From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
cc: bde@zeta.org.au, imp@village.org, current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: 2.2 Kernel Unstable
In-Reply-To: <199703190212.MAA20865@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970318222815.215p-100000@thelab.hub.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 19 Mar 1997, Michael Smith wrote:

> If the faults are 100% reproducible, with identical stack backtraces each
> time, then it might be possible to either locate the memory address
> that's faulty or locate the bug (if it's a bug).
>
	Actually, I wasn't looking at it as so much of a bug, as a change
of how the OS was handling acknowledged buggy hardware...I mistakingly
thought that maybe something changed between the Feb 7th (approx) code
and the current code...but you are most likely right, so I'll just drop 
it *shrug*