From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jan  1 21:40:19 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: current@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 154C816A46B
	for <current@FreeBSD.org>; Tue,  1 Jan 2008 21:40:19 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from weak.local (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EEE113C442;
	Tue,  1 Jan 2008 21:40:14 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org)
Message-ID: <477AB33B.7000506@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 22:40:11 +0100
From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mikhail Teterin <mi@bonkers.video-collage.com>
References: <200801012116.m01LGQhN012860@bonkers.video-collage.com>
In-Reply-To: <200801012116.m01LGQhN012860@bonkers.video-collage.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: efinleywork@efinley.com, current@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: a new way to hang 7.0
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 21:40:19 -0000

Mikhail Teterin wrote:
>>>>> Is this really a new way, or is it well known already? Thanks! -L
>>>> has been hanging systems ever since it existed. Don't use it.
>>> Why does `dump' implore me to use it, then?
>  
>> Because the previous poster is being uncharitable with the facts :) 
> 
> I'd say both previous posters reported problems -- their tone was
> different, but both reported their glass being, uhm, less then full :)

They made claims but failed to actually report anything.

>> There are a history of problems with -L (more generally, UFS
>> snapshots), but these are believed to have been fixed over the past 2
>> years. Since you are claiming to have found a new one, please follow
>> up with the usual kernel debugging so someone can try and study it.
> 
> I'll try, but I am not, unfortunately, well setup for kernel debugging.
> Most of the time I only have one system, and can't afford to hang it even
> for a short while.

OK.  Maybe it will stay broken until someone else can reproduce then.

Kris