From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 31 09:43:26 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FA2A16A4DA; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:43:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz) Received: from eva.fit.vutbr.cz (eva.fit.vutbr.cz [147.229.10.14]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F54743D46; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:43:24 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz) Received: from eva.fit.vutbr.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eva.fit.vutbr.cz (envelope-from xdivac02@eva.fit.vutbr.cz) (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id k6V9hJ4M022658 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:43:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from xdivac02@localhost) by eva.fit.vutbr.cz (8.13.7/8.13.3/Submit) id k6V9hHwU022656; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:43:17 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:43:17 +0200 From: Divacky Roman To: John Baldwin Message-ID: <20060731094316.GA22563@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> References: <44C39D7E.30102@mail.web.am> <200607251230.39953.jhb@freebsd.org> <20060727131344.GA81122@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> <200607271357.36839.jhb@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200607271357.36839.jhb@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.54 on 147.229.10.14 Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Gaspar Chilingarov Subject: Re: Are there any beakage of linuxulator (on amd64)? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:43:26 -0000 On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 01:57:36PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > On Thursday 27 July 2006 09:13, Divacky Roman wrote: > > > > this thursday at work I'll try to provide some more info, what exaclty > do you > > > > need? is what -DDEBUG prints enough? > > > > > > Probably. The changes in question were just in the linux semctl function, > so you > > > really only need printf's for that function to figure out which case it is > blowing > > > up one and why. > > > > soooo.... > > > > I checked the coredump and found this: > > > > 1) its not acroread what coredumps but bash binary (the binary used for the > > script) > > when I manually tried running the bash and "exec /bin/ls" etc. it worked > > I havent investigated further waht causes the coredump > > > > 2) I put printf() at the very begining of the linux_semctl() function and > > ran the acroread binary. The printf was not printed (ie. it didnt used the > > linxu_semctl function) > > That's odd, because the person who did the binary test claimed it was just the > change to this file that caused the breakage. That is, if they reverted > linux_ipc.c to the revision before the kern_semctl() changes it worked fine. > Can you test that to see if that's true for you? (You'll have to revert last > revision of linux_util.h as well.) pls, can you provide me patch which contains all the changes? thnx