Re: Kernel Panic on 6th March i386 build
Stefan Sperling wrote: On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 06:29:22PM -0500, Daniel Ouellet wrote: Claudio Jeker wrote: Fell free to disagree, that's fair. Sorry, I don't get it a non-developer tries to educate a developer about how kernel crashes should be reported? Sorry most of your standpoints are just wrong. Sure people are encuraged to run snapshot kernels but selfbuilt kernels are fine as long as they're built from a unmodified GENERIC config. Let us developers take care of yelling at those people who send in bad bug reports because we're acctually the people who may fix it in the end. Hi All, I stand corrected on this one. I was bias in my reply, I must admit it and come clean on it! No offense intended to anyone it may have offended. I was quick to reply to Steph as I did react to the content of the email and the linux name in the email address. My fault to react to quickly on this one. I should have know better! Mmmmh... Did you happen to confuse Steph and me? We have similar names. I did! My bad and I am very sorry for that. Not only did I put my foot in my mouth, swallow my boot, now I even lost my leg. I sure own you an apology! Sorry and I am crawling back under the biggest rock I can find! The clarifications on the kernel was well received never the less. Thanks. Daniel
Re: Kernel Panic on 6th March i386 build
Hi All, On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:01:50 +0700, FRLinux frli...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Daniel Ouellet dan...@presscom.net wrote: I was clearly out of place. Same to you Steph, I shouldn't have reacted so quickly to your email address and have wrongly concluded to an other Linux quick miss place question, or reaction. What I've learned from this is fairly simple: sit still, watch and listen :) Cheers, Steph Apology (if there's anything to apologies) accepted. I love this mailing-list, big hearted people came here, discuss and make funny-cruel-evil jokes, and we all actually supporter of OpenBSD, the OpenBSD way, and the developers. Big Cheers, applaus and salute to all of You. From Indonesia with Cheers and Beers, Cag, -- insandotpraja(at)gmaildotcom
Re: Kernel Panic on 6th March i386 build
Hi Daniel and Misc@, On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 06:29:22 +0700, Daniel Ouellet dan...@presscom.net wrote: Claudio Jeker wrote: Fell free to disagree, that's fair. Sorry, I don't get it a non-developer tries to educate a developer about how kernel crashes should be reported? Sorry most of your standpoints are just wrong. Sure people are encuraged to run snapshot kernels but selfbuilt kernels are fine as long as they're built from a unmodified GENERIC config. Let us developers take care of yelling at those people who send in bad bug reports because we're acctually the people who may fix it in the end. Hi All, I stand corrected on this one. I was bias in my reply, I must admit it and come clean on it! No offense intended to anyone it may have offended. I was quick to reply to Steph as I did react to the content of the email and the linux name in the email address. My fault to react to quickly on this one. I should have know better! Not only did I put my foot in my mouth, but I swallow the boot as well. I follow cvs for years and I didn't see Insan as making changes to the tree, so I didn't know he actually was a developers or I would have known better and I miss a chance to just shut up! I didn't see his name on the list either. My bad! I'm not a developer, if You mean I did something/contribute on the source-tree. But yeah, I periodically sync my testbed machine source-tree and compiled them, test them (most part is network subsystem) and I hope in someways, it might be helping the developers to find out bugs or anything they might interested into. Insan, please accept my apologies on a misplace reply to you on my part! Oh come on, we got our share supporting and enjoying these wonderful system, yeah sure, apology accepted. I was clearly out of place. Same to you Steph, I shouldn't have reacted so quickly to your email address and have wrongly concluded to an other Linux quick miss place question, or reaction. I try to help when I can and over time stop reacting as much as I used to, but obviously I still have ways to go as this treed have shown. My bad and I have no one else to blame then myself here. Please accept my deepest apology where I should have know better and obviously missed a chance to shut up! And Claudio and J.C., you are both right. Thanks for taking the time to straighted me up! I deserved that one fully. One only get better by learning from their mistakes and that's not the first I did for sure and I am sure it will not the last either. Best regards, Daniel Ouellet Thanks, -- insandotpraja(at)gmaildotcom
Re: Kernel Panic on 6th March i386 build
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Daniel Ouellet dan...@presscom.net wrote: I was clearly out of place. Same to you Steph, I shouldn't have reacted so quickly to your email address and have wrongly concluded to an other Linux quick miss place question, or reaction. What I've learned from this is fairly simple: sit still, watch and listen :) Cheers, Steph
Re: Kernel Panic on 6th March i386 build
On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 06:29:22PM -0500, Daniel Ouellet wrote: Claudio Jeker wrote: Fell free to disagree, that's fair. Sorry, I don't get it a non-developer tries to educate a developer about how kernel crashes should be reported? Sorry most of your standpoints are just wrong. Sure people are encuraged to run snapshot kernels but selfbuilt kernels are fine as long as they're built from a unmodified GENERIC config. Let us developers take care of yelling at those people who send in bad bug reports because we're acctually the people who may fix it in the end. Hi All, I stand corrected on this one. I was bias in my reply, I must admit it and come clean on it! No offense intended to anyone it may have offended. I was quick to reply to Steph as I did react to the content of the email and the linux name in the email address. My fault to react to quickly on this one. I should have know better! Mmmmh... Did you happen to confuse Steph and me? We have similar names. Not only did I put my foot in my mouth, but I swallow the boot as well. I follow cvs for years and I didn't see Insan as making changes to the tree, so I didn't know he actually was a developers or I would have known better and I miss a chance to just shut up! I didn't see his name on the list either. My bad! Claudio meant me I guess, not Insan. I personally don't really think that having an account on cvs.openbsd.org automatically makes someone omniscient, so I see nothing wrong with being corrected by people who don't have an account there. But the arguments have to be convincing of course (in this case they weren't but we already know that). Insan, please accept my apologies on a misplace reply to you on my part! That's the most important part. Thanks for apologizing to him! Stefan
Re: Kernel Panic on 6th March i386 build
On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 20:58:08 -0500 Daniel Ouellet dan...@presscom.net wrote: Fell free to disagree, that's fair. Best, Daniel With all due respect Daniel, I disagree, and I think you've misread things a bit. The original poster, Insan Praja, stated he had a panic with both a GENERIC kernel, and with the snapshot kernel, so the fact he compiled his own GENERIC kernel is completely irrelevant. The goal is to use GENERIC or GENERIC.MP when reporting bugs. Whether or not GENERIC/GENERIC.MP was compiled by you, or received as part of a snapshot does not matter. The things that really do matter are the actual *configuration* of the kernel, and whether or not any custom patches are being used. --The names GENERIC and GENERIC.MP are the names of the configuration files used to configure the build of the kernel. # cd /usr/src/sys/arch/i386/conf # config GENERIC # cd ../compile/GENERIC # make clean make depend make [...lots of output...] # make install If you are running the -RELEASE branch, you will be running the factory compiled GENERIC or GENERIC.MP kernel, but many people prefer to follow the -STABLE branch since there is some up-keep of the base system (i.e. security related patches, and other important fixes). If you are running the -STABLE branch, you will undoubtedly be compiling your own kernel, so obviously, who compiled the kernel does not matter. When it comes to running the -CURRENT branch, you could be either running the factory compiled kernel from a snapshot, or you could be running your own compiled kernel. There are some mild differences between running the GENERIC kernel from a snapshot, and running a GENERIC kernel which you compiled from source. At times, the supposedly GENERIC kernel(s) available in the snapshots have a bit of extra secret sauce, such as fairly solid patches which are still in need of further and greater testing. There are some great, but non-default, features not available in GENERIC or GENERIC.MP such as NTFS-read support. There is obviously no way to report a bug in the NTFS-read support unless it was enabled in the kernel, and hence, you're not running GENERIC/GENERIC.MP. There are nearly countless ways someone can really screw up a kernel configuration, and trying to track down bugs in some strange and unknown kernel is a serious waste of developer time. This is why people are told to always try to replicate the bug using GENERIC/GENERIC.MP before reporting it. In situations of reporting a bug on non-default features, like the NTFS-read support, you should replicate the bug with a kernel as close to GENERIC as possible, and then clearly state the exact changes you made to enable the non-default feature. When tracking down bugs, the more consistent things are, the easier it is to replicate, find, and fix the problem. This is why using *custom* kernels are strongly discouraged, and our standard GENERIC kernel is strongly encouraged. -- J.C. Roberts
Re: Kernel Panic on 6th March i386 build
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 08:58:08PM -0500, Daniel Ouellet wrote: Stefan Sperling wrote: And note that there have recently been changes in the way pf keeps track of icmp, so this may well be a valid report. Could sure be I give you that. However, still true that snapshot is the way to go and see the results. This is not one of these is it? There isn't a snapshot for the 6 ready yet anyway. However there is a commit already for icmp on pf as well: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvsm=123638870222588w=2 It may well address this issue for sure, or it may not. That commit was made in part because of this thread. Insan did the right thing. Stefan
Re: Kernel Panic on 6th March i386 build
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Robert rob...@openbsd.pap.st wrote: Wrong. Reporting problems with kernels built from unmodified source is fine. Appologies, I stant corrected. Steph
Re: Kernel Panic on 6th March i386 build
Hi Claudio and Misc@, On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 14:35:30 +0700, Claudio Jeker cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 08:58:08PM -0500, Daniel Ouellet wrote: Stefan Sperling wrote: On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 06:07:00PM -0500, Daniel Ouellet wrote: Insan Praja SW wrote: Hi, On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 03:17:57 +0700, FRLinux frli...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Insan Praja SW insan.pr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Misc@, on a i386 kernel recent build (6th march), I got panic. It says: Hello, As far as I know, home built kernel is not supported, you need to try out a snapshot instead and see if it works. Cheers, Steph You are right, but I always had a backup of last working kernel, and that is what I use now. But this panic happens and I like to report it to see if anyone else experiencing the same panic, with home build kernel or snapshot. It's a generic kernel, anyway, I hope I can contribute in some other way, you know.. like testing diff or finding bugs. I also use sendbug(1) to report the panic. Thanks, You just don't built home build kernel at all. This is really not linux here. You can configure all you want on it as is. So what if I want debug symbols to produce meaningful traces from kernel core dumps with gdb? Then I have to compile with DEBUG=-g to get a bsd.gdb. Then I have a self-compiled kernel already. That wasn't the question, but again, if you know that you need -g and are looking at kernel core dumps then you wouldn't asked questions about it on misc@ would you? Stay on the topic as it was asked. And it sure wasn't a question about the core dump used with -g was it? But related to icmp. And what if I'm testing diffs posted to t...@? When testing diffs you usually don't only run them for 5 minutes. You usually run them for as long as you can. Then your question would have been on tech@ related to a spefici diff as well from tech@ too, but it wasn't. I guess these faq entries are there to stop people from tweaking the config so hard that their machine cannot boot anymore, and then reporting this as a bug. They don't exist to stop people who somewhat know what they are doing from reporting things they find in kernels they've compiled themselves. They are there to make sure valid tests are done on generic kernel as is and valid meaning full reports are sent in that can be reproduce by others and get fix. Not to asked a free for all home built kernel from anyone. And note that there have recently been changes in the way pf keeps track of icmp, so this may well be a valid report. Could sure be I give you that. However, still true that snapshot is the way to go and see the results. This is not one of these is it? There isn't a snapshot for the 6 ready yet anyway. However there is a commit already for icmp on pf as well: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvsm=123638870222588w=2 It may well address this issue for sure, or it may not. The idea and intend still stand that it's not for everyone. Good one are important and useful and this may have been one of them. And if the same problem still exists then with a snapshot, I am sure someone will be more then happy to look into it. Hope this help to provide a bit more details as to what the intent of the faq are and what the spirit of my suggestion was. Fell free to disagree, that's fair. Sorry, I don't get it a non-developer tries to educate a developer about how kernel crashes should be reported? Sorry most of your standpoints are just wrong. Sure people are encuraged to run snapshot kernels but selfbuilt kernels are fine as long as they're built from a unmodified GENERIC config. Let us developers take care of yelling at those people who send in bad bug reports because we're acctually the people who may fix it in the end. I just sync the source-tree one of my panicking machines to 7th March '09, build the kernel and the userland and no panic. Here is the dmesg. OpenBSD 4.5-current (GENERIC) #72: Sat Mar 7 17:21:48 WIT 2009 r...@greenbridgevpn.mygreenlinks.net:/usr/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENERIC RTC BIOS diagnostic error dfixed_disk,invalid_time cpu0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3110 @ 3.00GHz (GenuineIntel 686-class) 3 GHz cpu0: FPU,V86,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,SBF,S SE3,MWAIT,DS-CPL,VMX,SMX,EST,TM2,CX16,xTPR real mem = 2143842304 (2044MB) avail mem = 2064748544 (1969MB) RTC BIOS diagnostic error dfixed_disk,invalid_time mainbus0 at root bios0 at mainbus0: AT/286+ BIOS, date 12/12/07, SMBIOS rev. 2.5 @ 0x7fdfd000 (63 entries) bios0: vendor Intel Corporation version S3200X38.86B.00.00.0045.082820081329 date 08/28/2008 bios0: Intel Corporation S3210SH acpi0 at bios0: rev 2 acpi0: tables DSDT SLIC FACP APIC WDDT MCFG HPET SPCR SSDT SSDT SSDT SSDT SSDT HEST BERT ERST EINJ DMAR acpi0: wakeup devices SLPB(S5) NPE1(S5) NPE6(S5) P32_(S5) PS2M(S1) PS2K(S1) ILAN(S5) PEX0(S5) PEX1(S5) PEX2(S5)
Re: Kernel Panic on 6th March i386 build
Claudio Jeker wrote: Fell free to disagree, that's fair. Sorry, I don't get it a non-developer tries to educate a developer about how kernel crashes should be reported? Sorry most of your standpoints are just wrong. Sure people are encuraged to run snapshot kernels but selfbuilt kernels are fine as long as they're built from a unmodified GENERIC config. Let us developers take care of yelling at those people who send in bad bug reports because we're acctually the people who may fix it in the end. Hi All, I stand corrected on this one. I was bias in my reply, I must admit it and come clean on it! No offense intended to anyone it may have offended. I was quick to reply to Steph as I did react to the content of the email and the linux name in the email address. My fault to react to quickly on this one. I should have know better! Not only did I put my foot in my mouth, but I swallow the boot as well. I follow cvs for years and I didn't see Insan as making changes to the tree, so I didn't know he actually was a developers or I would have known better and I miss a chance to just shut up! I didn't see his name on the list either. My bad! Insan, please accept my apologies on a misplace reply to you on my part! I was clearly out of place. Same to you Steph, I shouldn't have reacted so quickly to your email address and have wrongly concluded to an other Linux quick miss place question, or reaction. I try to help when I can and over time stop reacting as much as I used to, but obviously I still have ways to go as this treed have shown. My bad and I have no one else to blame then myself here. Please accept my deepest apology where I should have know better and obviously missed a chance to shut up! And Claudio and J.C., you are both right. Thanks for taking the time to straighted me up! I deserved that one fully. One only get better by learning from their mistakes and that's not the first I did for sure and I am sure it will not the last either. Best regards, Daniel Ouellet
Re: Kernel Panic on 6th March i386 build
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Insan Praja SW insan.pr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Misc@, on a i386 kernel recent build (6th march), I got panic. It says: Hello, As far as I know, home built kernel is not supported, you need to try out a snapshot instead and see if it works. Cheers, Steph
Re: Kernel Panic on 6th March i386 build
Hi, On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 03:17:57 +0700, FRLinux frli...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Insan Praja SW insan.pr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Misc@, on a i386 kernel recent build (6th march), I got panic. It says: Hello, As far as I know, home built kernel is not supported, you need to try out a snapshot instead and see if it works. Cheers, Steph You are right, but I always had a backup of last working kernel, and that is what I use now. But this panic happens and I like to report it to see if anyone else experiencing the same panic, with home build kernel or snapshot. It's a generic kernel, anyway, I hope I can contribute in some other way, you know.. like testing diff or finding bugs. I also use sendbug(1) to report the panic. Thanks, -- insandotpraja(at)gmaildotcom
Re: Kernel Panic on 6th March i386 build
On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 20:17:57 + FRLinux frli...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, As far as I know, home built kernel is not supported, you need to try out a snapshot instead and see if it works. Cheers, Steph Wrong. Reporting problems with kernels built from unmodified source is fine. - Robert
Re: Kernel Panic on 6th March i386 build
Insan Praja SW wrote: Hi, On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 03:17:57 +0700, FRLinux frli...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Insan Praja SW insan.pr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Misc@, on a i386 kernel recent build (6th march), I got panic. It says: Hello, As far as I know, home built kernel is not supported, you need to try out a snapshot instead and see if it works. Cheers, Steph You are right, but I always had a backup of last working kernel, and that is what I use now. But this panic happens and I like to report it to see if anyone else experiencing the same panic, with home build kernel or snapshot. It's a generic kernel, anyway, I hope I can contribute in some other way, you know.. like testing diff or finding bugs. I also use sendbug(1) to report the panic. Thanks, You just don't built home build kernel at all. This is really not linux here. You can configure all you want on it as is. Really, no one is interested on any bug reports on home built kernel and I can tell you for 99.9% sure no one from the project will look at home built kernel and it will not even make it into the bug tree. Read here: http://openbsd.org/faq/faq5.html#Options And specially here: http://openbsd.org/faq/faq5.html#Why You are on your own really. Hope this help you to do what you want and look specially at: http://openbsd.org/faq/faq5.html#BootConfig if you fell you absolutely need something special, but really you don't. Best, Daniel
Re: Kernel Panic on 6th March i386 build
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 06:07:00PM -0500, Daniel Ouellet wrote: Insan Praja SW wrote: Hi, On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 03:17:57 +0700, FRLinux frli...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Insan Praja SW insan.pr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Misc@, on a i386 kernel recent build (6th march), I got panic. It says: Hello, As far as I know, home built kernel is not supported, you need to try out a snapshot instead and see if it works. Cheers, Steph You are right, but I always had a backup of last working kernel, and that is what I use now. But this panic happens and I like to report it to see if anyone else experiencing the same panic, with home build kernel or snapshot. It's a generic kernel, anyway, I hope I can contribute in some other way, you know.. like testing diff or finding bugs. I also use sendbug(1) to report the panic. Thanks, You just don't built home build kernel at all. This is really not linux here. You can configure all you want on it as is. So what if I want debug symbols to produce meaningful traces from kernel core dumps with gdb? Then I have to compile with DEBUG=-g to get a bsd.gdb. Then I have a self-compiled kernel already. And what if I'm testing diffs posted to t...@? When testing diffs you usually don't only run them for 5 minutes. You usually run them for as long as you can. I guess these faq entries are there to stop people from tweaking the config so hard that their machine cannot boot anymore, and then reporting this as a bug. They don't exist to stop people who somewhat know what they are doing from reporting things they find in kernels they've compiled themselves. And note that there have recently been changes in the way pf keeps track of icmp, so this may well be a valid report. Stefan
Re: Kernel Panic on 6th March i386 build
Stefan Sperling wrote: On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 06:07:00PM -0500, Daniel Ouellet wrote: Insan Praja SW wrote: Hi, On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 03:17:57 +0700, FRLinux frli...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Insan Praja SW insan.pr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Misc@, on a i386 kernel recent build (6th march), I got panic. It says: Hello, As far as I know, home built kernel is not supported, you need to try out a snapshot instead and see if it works. Cheers, Steph You are right, but I always had a backup of last working kernel, and that is what I use now. But this panic happens and I like to report it to see if anyone else experiencing the same panic, with home build kernel or snapshot. It's a generic kernel, anyway, I hope I can contribute in some other way, you know.. like testing diff or finding bugs. I also use sendbug(1) to report the panic. Thanks, You just don't built home build kernel at all. This is really not linux here. You can configure all you want on it as is. So what if I want debug symbols to produce meaningful traces from kernel core dumps with gdb? Then I have to compile with DEBUG=-g to get a bsd.gdb. Then I have a self-compiled kernel already. That wasn't the question, but again, if you know that you need -g and are looking at kernel core dumps then you wouldn't asked questions about it on misc@ would you? Stay on the topic as it was asked. And it sure wasn't a question about the core dump used with -g was it? But related to icmp. And what if I'm testing diffs posted to t...@? When testing diffs you usually don't only run them for 5 minutes. You usually run them for as long as you can. Then your question would have been on tech@ related to a spefici diff as well from tech@ too, but it wasn't. I guess these faq entries are there to stop people from tweaking the config so hard that their machine cannot boot anymore, and then reporting this as a bug. They don't exist to stop people who somewhat know what they are doing from reporting things they find in kernels they've compiled themselves. They are there to make sure valid tests are done on generic kernel as is and valid meaning full reports are sent in that can be reproduce by others and get fix. Not to asked a free for all home built kernel from anyone. And note that there have recently been changes in the way pf keeps track of icmp, so this may well be a valid report. Could sure be I give you that. However, still true that snapshot is the way to go and see the results. This is not one of these is it? There isn't a snapshot for the 6 ready yet anyway. However there is a commit already for icmp on pf as well: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvsm=123638870222588w=2 It may well address this issue for sure, or it may not. The idea and intend still stand that it's not for everyone. Good one are important and useful and this may have been one of them. And if the same problem still exists then with a snapshot, I am sure someone will be more then happy to look into it. Hope this help to provide a bit more details as to what the intent of the faq are and what the spirit of my suggestion was. Fell free to disagree, that's fair. Best, Daniel
Re: Kernel Panic on 6th March i386 build
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 08:58:08PM -0500, Daniel Ouellet wrote: Stefan Sperling wrote: On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 06:07:00PM -0500, Daniel Ouellet wrote: Insan Praja SW wrote: Hi, On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 03:17:57 +0700, FRLinux frli...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Insan Praja SW insan.pr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Misc@, on a i386 kernel recent build (6th march), I got panic. It says: Hello, As far as I know, home built kernel is not supported, you need to try out a snapshot instead and see if it works. Cheers, Steph You are right, but I always had a backup of last working kernel, and that is what I use now. But this panic happens and I like to report it to see if anyone else experiencing the same panic, with home build kernel or snapshot. It's a generic kernel, anyway, I hope I can contribute in some other way, you know.. like testing diff or finding bugs. I also use sendbug(1) to report the panic. Thanks, You just don't built home build kernel at all. This is really not linux here. You can configure all you want on it as is. So what if I want debug symbols to produce meaningful traces from kernel core dumps with gdb? Then I have to compile with DEBUG=-g to get a bsd.gdb. Then I have a self-compiled kernel already. That wasn't the question, but again, if you know that you need -g and are looking at kernel core dumps then you wouldn't asked questions about it on misc@ would you? Stay on the topic as it was asked. And it sure wasn't a question about the core dump used with -g was it? But related to icmp. And what if I'm testing diffs posted to t...@? When testing diffs you usually don't only run them for 5 minutes. You usually run them for as long as you can. Then your question would have been on tech@ related to a spefici diff as well from tech@ too, but it wasn't. I guess these faq entries are there to stop people from tweaking the config so hard that their machine cannot boot anymore, and then reporting this as a bug. They don't exist to stop people who somewhat know what they are doing from reporting things they find in kernels they've compiled themselves. They are there to make sure valid tests are done on generic kernel as is and valid meaning full reports are sent in that can be reproduce by others and get fix. Not to asked a free for all home built kernel from anyone. And note that there have recently been changes in the way pf keeps track of icmp, so this may well be a valid report. Could sure be I give you that. However, still true that snapshot is the way to go and see the results. This is not one of these is it? There isn't a snapshot for the 6 ready yet anyway. However there is a commit already for icmp on pf as well: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvsm=123638870222588w=2 It may well address this issue for sure, or it may not. The idea and intend still stand that it's not for everyone. Good one are important and useful and this may have been one of them. And if the same problem still exists then with a snapshot, I am sure someone will be more then happy to look into it. Hope this help to provide a bit more details as to what the intent of the faq are and what the spirit of my suggestion was. Fell free to disagree, that's fair. Sorry, I don't get it a non-developer tries to educate a developer about how kernel crashes should be reported? Sorry most of your standpoints are just wrong. Sure people are encuraged to run snapshot kernels but selfbuilt kernels are fine as long as they're built from a unmodified GENERIC config. Let us developers take care of yelling at those people who send in bad bug reports because we're acctually the people who may fix it in the end. -- :wq Claudio
