From nobody Sat Mar 5 15:37:48 2022 X-Original-To: freebsd-arm@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90A5719E7042 for ; Sat, 5 Mar 2022 15:37:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd@www.zefox.net) Received: from www.zefox.net (www.zefox.net [50.1.20.27]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "www.zefox.com", Issuer "www.zefox.com" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4K9pkn0WRcz4t2g for ; Sat, 5 Mar 2022 15:37:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd@www.zefox.net) Received: from www.zefox.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www.zefox.net (8.16.1/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 225FbmGC024490 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 5 Mar 2022 07:37:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fbsd@www.zefox.net) Received: (from fbsd@localhost) by www.zefox.net (8.16.1/8.15.2/Submit) id 225FbmeX024489; Sat, 5 Mar 2022 07:37:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fbsd) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2022 07:37:48 -0800 From: bob prohaska To: Mark Millard Cc: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org, bob prohaska Subject: Re: Panic while making buildlernel on RPi3 Message-ID: <20220305153748.GA24413@www.zefox.net> References: <20220304214836.GA21411@www.zefox.net> <29044F99-661A-4C75-9493-28857DAB963F@yahoo.com> <20220305043002.GB21411@www.zefox.net> List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to ARM processors List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-arm List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-arm@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4K9pkn0WRcz4t2g X-Spamd-Bar: - Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of fbsd@www.zefox.net has no SPF policy when checking 50.1.20.27) smtp.mailfrom=fbsd@www.zefox.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.04 / 15.00]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; WWW_DOT_DOMAIN(0.50)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[zefox.net]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-0.998]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.95)[-0.946]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-arm]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[yahoo.com]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:7065, ipnet:50.1.16.0/20, country:US]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; MID_RHS_WWW(0.50)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N Status: O Content-Length: 1995 Lines: 52 On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 10:51:00PM -0800, Mark Millard wrote: > On 2022-Mar-4, at 20:30, bob prohaska wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 05:36:20PM -0800, Mark Millard wrote: > > Are you going to do the official-builds-on-microsd-card > sorts of boot and try tests that I've suggested, such as a > 13.1-PRERELEASE (snapshot) test? (This avoids your having > built anything tested and all but whatever minimal > configuration that you need to do to allow the test.) > Yes, after stable/13 settles down a bit. This failure was on -current. > Getting a failure from such an installation of official > installation materials might be more likely to lead to > getting help isolating the issue. Understood. At this point I have two RPI3 systems which exhibit the same problem (faulty ping response). One has followed stable/13 (which had the clang errors you helped with), the other has tracked -current. > [Back to the Subject line's issue . . .] > > > I've been using -DWITH_META_MODE as a default setting for buildworld and > > buildkernel. Might this be part of my problems with the Pi3's ? > > NO_CLEAN is more likely to have the result messed up: it > does less dependency checking and can miss more that should > be rebuilt/relinked. > > WITH_META_MODE is likely to rebuild more than NO_CLEAN, and > so, less likely to include stale material. > > Without special knowledge of the details of what all needs to > be rebuilt at the time, WITH_META_MODE is normally safer. I note with interest that you say "safer", not safe. How do the various cleaning targets described in the build manpage compare? There's clean, cleandir and cleandepend, along with rm -rf /usr/obj. It appears cleandir run twice is equivalant to combined clean and rm -rf /usr/obj. I've not tried cleandepend yet, might it help? It sounds like an occasional clean start buildworld/buildkernel would reduce uncertainty, if not problems. Thanks very much for writing! bob prohaska