From owner-freebsd-current Thu Jul 15 13:18:11 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mail.palmerharvey.co.uk (mail.palmerharvey.co.uk [62.172.109.58]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52D1114D09 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:18:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Dom.Mitchell@palmerharvey.co.uk) Received: from ho-nt-01.pandhm.co.uk (unverified) by mail.palmerharvey.co.uk (Content Technologies SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:17:39 +0100 Received: from voodoo.pandhm.co.uk (VOODOO [10.100.35.12]) by ho-nt-01.pandhm.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id 3WRWC5CS; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:18:27 +0100 Received: from dom by voodoo.pandhm.co.uk with local (Exim 2.10 #1) id 114rxD-0000SB-00; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:18:03 +0100 Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:18:03 +0100 To: Luoqi Chen Cc: Dom.Mitchell@palmerharvey.co.uk, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: panic: zone: entry in free Message-Id: <19990715211803.A1728@palmerharvey.co.uk> References: <199907151618.MAA03390@lor.watermarkgroup.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.6i In-Reply-To: <199907151618.MAA03390@lor.watermarkgroup.com>; from Luoqi Chen on Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 12:18:42PM -0400 From: Dominic Mitchell Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 12:18:42PM -0400, Luoqi Chen wrote: > > I realise that will stop the panic from looking at the source code, but > > surely it's just covering up the problem and waiting for it to happen > > later? > > > I'm pretty it's caused by the INVARIANTS option, similar incidents have been > reported many times before. The problem with INVARIANTS is that 1. it alters > data structures, 2. kernel modules don't know about this option, so you > have inconsistent kernel and modules. There're three solutions, > > 1, make INVARIANTS less intrusive. So far only vm_zone code is causing > problems, I suggest we rename the option to INVARIANTS_ZONE in this part > of code (the code should be pretty much bug free by now). > > 2, compile modules with the option. The easiest way is probably add > -DINVARIANTS in your /etc/make.conf, you have to remember to take it > out when you remove the option from your config file. > > 3, do not use INVARIANTS if you don't need it. :) Well, for the moment, I guess I'll take the 3rd option. My current kernel seems to be up and alive a lot longer... Given that I'm not the programmer, I'll keep INVARIANTS off for the moment. This of course begs the question, under what circumstances *should* one use INVARIANTS? -- Dom Mitchell -- Palmer & Harvey McLane -- Unix Systems Administrator In Mountain View did Larry Wall Sedately launch a quiet plea: That DOS, the ancient system, shall On boxes pleasureless to all Run Perl though lack they C. -- ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. ********************************************************************** To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message