From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Tue Mar 7 19:43:44 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D642D02079 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 19:43:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-io0-x22e.google.com (mail-io0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 246B11C97 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 19:43:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mail-io0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id f84so11875274ioj.0 for ; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 11:43:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=U/QpewMsZDgEavAtNdG2+eEPcW4hG08sHtpnSIIrP6A=; b=C3Uqy7sefWdFuA3v2Ijbue9gCgRVe2qQy7w5zbmMlOmMvBbo75rEjCPsCjlgScF2Lc DlJKYFpvuIKPVEjdxMk5Y6O3gPZNp/CVg8511igbz8nqUVMppT65qurMSXas0pyU020w PMvlVdtjYye3K87E8QhZuHs6vYToQO1ZCwX1KXepkkMzA7HjHupo/W3nXp2L5IDqukLd Uy5TFSYfqcuux9Z4qz9LlJz0J1qnCqmodIEk/JoqkcsyR7zCuGZJl6zXjG2N1sXAut2K qPJrtk7sI4KrfvqXiLlEMyHsuwoaAiStZWv+1HfdzAvjDeoKwzq3jbWQezk+6Ad3E9PE NBZw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=U/QpewMsZDgEavAtNdG2+eEPcW4hG08sHtpnSIIrP6A=; b=azFx/JD4i2ePfODyziwJFsfefDWDImFNAQcVCLeCxGqH2k/1XIvaTrpsHjOywP3Ho6 ugzWE1aYfkHICxh8tjJYsTHxLs5uxYmdx0dTrrEs/5ko8R3Te3RXbgiMGsVjGLj5+L6N Q+y7BIbhe/HDdpFVibMnF7PPbTzLfiQ2fBdkykXkU15FWYPl1AOBamFPxIiS5haLcilG +y58g4WhxYKopyRQkJI9pG6X/niulCWqP4US8vYHgkjP3hDzpC2i2OXeizxKYa3XGvfI SBkCbA+OL2KTqbZed1NUFwKT4JBalRb/Q9ihr/1oNuEJR9tjJP14qns+zrxEzHGhnPWn FPKw== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mk7+CCkDTGMG8zECYK07pGmLRCBLnbGM0rG7F1HzMPQInSqFYQRgDN4mtozMtbA7AygM8p/FPzcajNRA== X-Received: by 10.107.134.94 with SMTP id i91mr2651491iod.0.1488915823229; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 11:43:43 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: wlosh@bsdimp.com Received: by 10.79.134.129 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 11:43:42 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [69.53.245.200] In-Reply-To: References: <0b702c55-aa92-193f-77e1-c5c8aa1a668f@FreeBSD.org> <12f82f8b-658e-23e0-c017-c917dd8cd638@FreeBSD.org> From: Warner Losh Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 12:43:42 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: c2gQGBGEEoxxIQ87kd-bbIoZm78 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Strange kernel build breakage (after r314283?) To: Chris H Cc: Lev Serebryakov , Kevin Oberman , FreeBSD CURRENT , Warner Losh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 19:43:44 -0000 On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Chris H wrote: > On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 09:13:58 -0800 Kevin Oberman wrote > >> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: >> >> > On 06.03.2017 20:10, Lev Serebryakov wrote: >> > >> > > I've got this error when tried to update my -CURRENT VM to r314772: >> > > >> > > /data/src/sys/cam/cam_xpt.c:84:1: error: static_assert failed >> > > "XPT_PRINT_LEN is too large" >> > > _Static_assert(XPT_PRINT_LEN <= XPT_PRINT_MAXLEN, "XPT_PRINT_LEN is too >> > > large"); >> > > ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> > > >> > > I didn't define any XPT_xxxx macro by hands, but I have >> > > >> > > options PRINTF_BUFR_SIZE=1024 >> > > >> > > in my kernel config. >> > Yep, removing this option helps, but it is surprising and not obvious >> > at all! >> > >> > -- >> > // Lev Serebryakov >> > >> >> If my memory is good (and it may not be), this option was recommended to >> prevent garbled syslog and console entries, but that was back in v8 days, >> long, long ago. I have not had his problem for a long time and I think that >> the option is no longer required and even they, 1024 was a LOT bigger than >> was recommended at the time. 128 or 256 seems tike the value recommended. > > Relax. You're memory is still in good order. :-) > It was in fact the reason. I had to add the then suggested amount: > PRINTF_BUFR_SIZE=128 > to my KERNCONF even into early 9. But haven't required it since > ~mid-9. > > OTOH I'm now seeing something similar on CURRENT. Only somewhat > in reverse. > The last message I receive on the console following halt(8) is > the message telling me the NIC has been brought down. It then > sits there until I hit the enter key to reboot(8). > > But that's another topic for another thread. :-) Hmmm, looks like I broke this... Meaning the static config. I'll look at it more closely. Warner