Robert Elz writes:
> Date:Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:50:37 +0100 (CET)
> From:Jarle Greipsland
> Message-ID: <20170130.195037.3233.ja...@uninett.no>
>
> | I noticed that new X11 code was imported back in August. Might
> | this have something to do with my sloppyfoc
The NetBSD-current/i386 build is working again.
The following commits were made between the last failed build and the
successful build:
2017.02.01.01.22.39 christos src/external/bsd/libevent/include/Makefile,v
1.3
2017.02.01.01.23.17 christos src/distrib/sets/lists/comp/mi,v 1.2106
2
Updating src tree:
P src/distrib/sets/lists/base/shl.mi
P src/distrib/sets/lists/comp/mi
P src/distrib/sets/lists/debug/shl.mi
P src/doc/3RDPARTY
P src/doc/CHANGES
P src/external/bsd/blacklist/lib/libblacklist.3
P src/external/bsd/libevent/Makefile.inc
P src/external/bsd/libevent/dist/ChangeLog
U
> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:00:29 -0500
> From: Thor Lancelot Simon
>
> Maybe we should alert in a more sophisticated way -- monitor the failure
> rate and alert only if it is significantly above the expected rate.
>
> I might even remember enough statistics to do that.
For production, if you b
This is an automatically generated notice of a NetBSD-current/i386
build failure.
The failure occurred on babylon5.netbsd.org, a NetBSD/amd64 host,
using sources from CVS date 2017.01.31.21.25.58.
An extract from the build.sh output follows:
chain = start_at->_internal.chain;
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 05:54:37PM +0100, Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:45:55AM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> > The only time we've ever really dug into it, I believe, the user decided
> > the failures were right around the expected failure rate. Can you help
> > gather
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 05:54:37PM +0100, Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:45:55AM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> > The only time we've ever really dug into it, I believe, the user decided
> > the failures were right around the expected failure rate. Can you help
> > gather
> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 16:55:38 +
> From: Taylor R Campbell
>
> This is roughly to be expected from any stochastic test that has
> nonzero false positive rate. I have not computed exactly what the
> false rejection rate is under the null hypothesis of uniform random
> bits for these tests.
> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:16:33 +0100 (CET)
> From: Havard Eidnes
>
> rnd: WARNING! initial entropy low (0).
> rnd: entropy estimate 0 bits
> rnd: asking source callout for 512 bytes
> rnd: system-power attached as an entropy source (collecting)
> mainbus0 (root)
> cpu0 at mainbus0 core 0: 1536
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:45:55AM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> The only time we've ever really dug into it, I believe, the user decided
> the failures were right around the expected failure rate. Can you help
> gather more data?
Good point, and I am not sure this might cover my case as we
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 05:40:01PM +0100, Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:38:02AM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> > The statistical failures later in system run might indicate a memory
> > integrity issue, a race condition of some kind, or just be the expected
> > roughly 3/
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:38:02AM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> The statistical failures later in system run might indicate a memory
> integrity issue, a race condition of some kind, or just be the expected
> roughly 3/1 random occurrences. Hard to say without more information.
I see s
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 05:16:33PM +0100, Havard Eidnes wrote:
> >> Meanwhile the hardware random generator sits there unused.
> >
> > Does it sit there completely unused, or did it get used a little at
> > boot time?
>
> It generated some bits at boot time, but apparently not early
> enough, beca
>> Meanwhile the hardware random generator sits there unused.
>
> Does it sit there completely unused, or did it get used a little at
> boot time?
It generated some bits at boot time, but apparently not early
enough, because on each reboot the kernel log looks like this:
...
total memory = 1024 M
> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 21:13:03 +0100 (CET)
> From: Havard Eidnes
>
> Meanwhile the hardware random generator sits there unused.
Does it sit there completely unused, or did it get used a little at
boot time? That's the most important time to use it; otherwise it
doesn't really matter, unless y
In article <1485849401.2416.8.ca...@sympatico.ca>,
David H. Gutteridge wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I've noticed that all the recent builds of -current on nyftp.netbsd.org
>provide files with a modification date of zero. E.g.:
>
>A recent netbsd-7 build:
>
>[disciple@arcusix ~]$ tar tvzf kern-GENERIC.tgzÂ
16 matches
Mail list logo