Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 19:58:53 -0400 From: Nathaniel W Filardo <nwf@cs.jhu.edu> To: Chris Ross <cross+freebsd@distal.com> Cc: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 10-STABLE/sparc64 panic Message-ID: <20140518235853.GM24043@gradx.cs.jhu.edu> In-Reply-To: <751F7778-95CE-40FC-857F-222FB37737C0@distal.com> References: <20140518083413.GK24043@gradx.cs.jhu.edu> <751F7778-95CE-40FC-857F-222FB37737C0@distal.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--wAI/bQb0EMvlZCHl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 01:06:41PM -0400, Chris Ross wrote: > Nathaniel, I assume you saw Eric's email saying he'd narrowed it down to > r263478? If that's accurate, it links it to four revisions from head. So, that > is a big head start on the bisection... I'd think r262763 is the obvious candidate > of the four mentioned, as it's the only big one. At that point we'll need someone > pretty familiar with the networking parts of the kernel and sparc64, and I'm > certain I can't fill that role. Indeed. After staring at the changes for a while and getting nowhere, on a whim, I removed everything of substance in that commit in a new build of the head of stable/10 branch (that is, I nuked all the counter_* calls and renamed the counter entry so that I was sure I didn't miss any) and it still panic()d in the same way. Nothing else looks like it could possibly manipulate spinlocks, so just to be sure I'm re-bisecting. If this bisection yields the same result, I'll probably try diffing the generated assembler, but I'm not sure what I expect to see from that. Cheers, --nwf; --wAI/bQb0EMvlZCHl Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlN5ST0ACgkQTeQabvr9Tc/5DQCeNwbP8miAhfWvLgrgatTPslnI MOEAniH5OfvhIi9Qabg0B6VdLYXFCkrO =BZ3I -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --wAI/bQb0EMvlZCHl--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140518235853.GM24043>