From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Feb 17 12:17:03 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B0FA16A4CE
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:17:03 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [204.156.12.53])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C671043D2F
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:17:02 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50])
	by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6E3B846B39;
	Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:17:02 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:15:37 +0000 (GMT)
From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>
X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org
To: Kara Chapman <kchapman@systemmetrics.com>
In-Reply-To: <5C7BFA11917D504C90B39AD593859525098279@hurricane.systemmetrics.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1050217121413.38170F-100000@fledge.watson.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
Subject: RE: SMP  kernel
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:17:03 -0000


On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Kara Chapman wrote:

> Thanks for your help -- that seems to have fixed the problem. You
> mentioned that it was only a temporary fix, so what do you suggest doing
> now? Is this a bug that I should report? 

FYI, the error below is probably not causing actual problems, but we
should work to track don the source of the error.  If possible, could you
try running with the attached patch to uipc_syscalls.c and see if you get
kernel printf output associated with the error?  What I'd like to do is
figure out what the particular source of the EINVAL is, since there are
several possible sources. 

Thanks!

Robert N M Watson

Index: uipc_syscalls.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/kern/uipc_syscalls.c,v
retrieving revision 1.200.2.3
diff -u -r1.200.2.3 uipc_syscalls.c
--- uipc_syscalls.c	31 Jan 2005 23:26:18 -0000	1.200.2.3
+++ uipc_syscalls.c	17 Feb 2005 12:14:55 -0000
@@ -347,6 +347,7 @@
 		error = head->so_error;
 		head->so_error = 0;
 		ACCEPT_UNLOCK();
+		printf("accept: head->so_error %d\n", error);
 		goto noconnection;
 	}
 	so = TAILQ_FIRST(&head->so_comp);