From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 14 14:31:33 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: stable@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A778700; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:31:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@regency.nsu.ru) Received: from mx.nsu.ru (mx.nsu.ru [84.237.50.39]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 957AC8FC1A; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:31:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from regency.nsu.ru ([193.124.210.26]) by mx.nsu.ru with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TjWIT-00028O-E9; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 21:31:29 +0700 Received: from regency.nsu.ru (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by regency.nsu.ru (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id qBEEWJfK025201; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 21:32:19 +0700 (NOVT) (envelope-from danfe@regency.nsu.ru) Received: (from danfe@localhost) by regency.nsu.ru (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id qBEEWDiC025146; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 21:32:13 +0700 (NOVT) (envelope-from danfe) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 21:32:13 +0700 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Andriy Gapon Subject: Re: kgdb + uart Message-ID: <20121214143213.GB20406@regency.nsu.ru> References: <20121214030208.GA15080@regency.nsu.ru> <20121214030747.GC1280@glenbarber.us> <20121214032349.GD1280@glenbarber.us> <20121214034056.GA22963@regency.nsu.ru> <20121214080450.GA63557@regency.nsu.ru> <50CAF64E.70600@FreeBSD.org> <20121214103532.GA88134@regency.nsu.ru> <50CB0217.70002@FreeBSD.org> <20121214110058.GC88134@regency.nsu.ru> <50CB0BE4.4050103@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50CB0BE4.4050103@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: stable@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:31:33 -0000 On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 01:22:12PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote: > Yeah, kgdb and target kernel must closely match each other. > I guess that the machine does not support amd64 mode? Which machine? :-) My laptop can do i386 only, as it has old Dothan CPU. Lenovo box (victim) is E5500, which I want to use as amd64, but you've given me an idea: if this problem is not amd64-specific, I might be able to trigger it with 10.0/i386 and then remotely debug from my laptop. I will try it tomorrow, thanks! ./danfe