Re: [Ugly PATCH] Again: panic kmem_malloc()

2002-10-20 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : "M. Warner Losh" wrote: : > : > : + if (sops) : > : > : + free(sops, M_SEM); : > : > : > : > The kernel free() groks free(NULL, M_FOO), so the if isn't needed. : > : : > : Wow. That's bogus. It

Reproduceable partial hang on -current as of a few days ago

2002-10-20 Thread Jason A. Young
While running 'time nice +10 make -j4 buildkernel KERNCONF=JYOUNGLP', the compile process eventually grinds to a halt. The compiler wedges in state 'ufs' according to top (I keep it running while reproducing the issue) and ctrl-T. After the compile process freezes, anytime I try to start something

Re: Conflicting declarations for ffs()

2002-10-20 Thread Bruce Evans
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Juli Mallett wrote: > * De: Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2002-10-20 ] > [ Subjecte: Re: Conflicting declarations for ffs() ] > > BSD/OS arranges kernel-only MD headers better by not putting them in > > . This also inhibits them being abused in MI code. > > Wh

i386 tinderbox failure

2002-10-20 Thread Dag-Erling Smorgrav
-- >>> Rebuilding the temporary build tree -- >>> stage 1: bootstrap tools -- >>> stage 2: cleaning up the object tree

Re: [Ugly PATCH] Again: panic kmem_malloc()

2002-10-20 Thread Terry Lambert
"M. Warner Losh" wrote: > : > : + if (sops) > : > : + free(sops, M_SEM); > : > > : > The kernel free() groks free(NULL, M_FOO), so the if isn't needed. > : > : Wow. That's bogus. It should panic. > > It isn't bogus. free(NULL) is defined to be OK in ansi-c. The kernel > just mi

Re: New groff breaks alpha world

2002-10-20 Thread Bruce Evans
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > Would it be acceptable to apply the following patch to link groff > statically so as to unbreak the alpha world while the binutils > maintainer figures out why ld is broken? > > Index: Makefile >

Re: Conflicting declarations for ffs()

2002-10-20 Thread Juli Mallett
* De: Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2002-10-20 ] [ Subjecte: Re: Conflicting declarations for ffs() ] > BSD/OS arranges kernel-only MD headers better by not putting them in > . This also inhibits them being abused in MI code. What do they do, MACHINE_ARCH/MACHINE_ARCH/header.h

ports broken by KSE changes

2002-10-20 Thread Kris Kennaway
The following ports are among those broken by KSE changes. They need to be fixed before 5.0-RELEASE. Who can help with this? http://bento.freebsd.org/errorlogs/5-full/m3gdb-4.17.log http://bento.freebsd.org/errorlogs/5-full/blimitd-0.1_1.log http://bento.freebsd.org/errorlogs/5-full/jailutils-0.

Release-building saga continues

2002-10-20 Thread Bruce A. Mah
I successfully built an i386 miniinst.iso image, using a repository updated around mid-day Saturday (California time). When I burned and booted this image, I landed in sysinstall (yay!) with a dialog box complaining "Couldn't create directory /tmp: Read-only file system" (d'oh!). There's a number

Re: New groff breaks alpha world

2002-10-20 Thread David O'Brien
On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 06:40:53PM -0400, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > Would it be acceptable to apply the following patch to link groff > statically so as to unbreak the alpha world while the binutils > maintainer figures out why ld is broken? Committed. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED

Patch to make ipfw2 work on sparc64

2002-10-20 Thread Maxime Henrion
Hello all, I got ipfw2 apparently working on my sparc64 box. I simply added new fields in the structure of the rules to avoid the evil casting. Of course, it breaks the ABI, so ipfw(8) must be rebuilt. Also, this may be considered bloat since I didn't use unions or anything, but I think

Lock order reversal

2002-10-20 Thread Gavin Atkinson
Just got this from a 17th October kernel, it does not look like it's been reported before. lock order reversal 1st 0xc21f5250 vnode interlock (vnode interlock) @ /usr/src/sys/kern/vfs_subr.c:945 2nd 0xc0409e80 vm page queue mutex (vm page queue mutex) @ /usr/src/sys/vm/vm_kern.c:424 Gavin T

Re: cdrtools doesn't build on -current

2002-10-20 Thread Terry Lambert
Edwin Groothuis wrote: > On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 07:53:46PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 12:08:07PM +0200, Michael Nottebrock wrote: > > > The single one -CURRENT vs. -STABLE difference that causes many easy to > > > fix breakages is really gcc. > > ... > > > and not ever

i386 tinderbox failure

2002-10-20 Thread Dag-Erling Smorgrav
-- >>> Rebuilding the temporary build tree -- >>> stage 1: bootstrap tools -- >>> stage 2: cleaning up the object tree