On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 10:05:57PM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-04-21 at 23:26 -0400, Glen Barber wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:21:24PM -0400, Glen Barber wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 09:09:42PM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote:
> > > > > The last successful build for powerpc on h
On Mon, 2014-04-21 at 23:26 -0400, Glen Barber wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:21:24PM -0400, Glen Barber wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 09:09:42PM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote:
> > > > The last successful build for powerpc on head/ was April 8. But I am
> > > > having trouble tracking down wha
On Mon, 2014-04-21 at 23:26 -0400, Glen Barber wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:21:24PM -0400, Glen Barber wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 09:09:42PM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote:
> > > > The last successful build for powerpc on head/ was April 8. But I am
> > > > having trouble tracking down wha
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:21:24PM -0400, Glen Barber wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 09:09:42PM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote:
> > > The last successful build for powerpc on head/ was April 8. But I am
> > > having trouble tracking down what commits may (or may not) have
> > > contributed to recent hi
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 09:09:42PM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote:
> > The last successful build for powerpc on head/ was April 8. But I am
> > having trouble tracking down what commits may (or may not) have
> > contributed to recent high-parallel build failures.
> >
>
> A couple weeks corresponds some
On Mon, 2014-04-21 at 22:54 -0400, Glen Barber wrote:
> I have been pounding my head against the desk for longer than I care to
> admit with this failure.
>
> I see this with powerpc, powerpc64, and now ia64. I initially thought
> it was specific to powerpc{,64}, but now realize ia64 is also affe
I have been pounding my head against the desk for longer than I care to
admit with this failure.
I see this with powerpc, powerpc64, and now ia64. I initially thought
it was specific to powerpc{,64}, but now realize ia64 is also affected.
This build was running with -j48 on a 48-core machine, wh
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014, R. Tyler Croy wrote:
I've noticed this as of late on my i386 -CURRENT Thinkpad T43 when I perform
some file operations, but an exact reproduction case I've not yet stumbled
upon:
Apr 20 01:29:32 lemon kernel: lock order reversal:
Apr 20 01:29:32 lemon kernel: 1st 0xc58323
TB --- 2014-04-21 07:50:28 - tinderbox 2.21 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2014-04-21 07:50:28 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 9.2-STABLE
FreeBSD 9.2-STABLE #0 r263721: Tue Mar 25 09:27:39 EDT 2014
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB --- 2014
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 09:03:20AM +0200, O. Hartmann wrote:
> On FreeBSD 11.0-CURRENT #0 r264702: Sun Apr 20 23:56:04 CEST 2014 amd64
>
> I receive this mysterious message several times when compiling a new kernel an
> automatically build virtualbox-ose-kmod-4.3.10. What is this supposed to mean?
On FreeBSD 11.0-CURRENT #0 r264702: Sun Apr 20 23:56:04 CEST 2014 amd64
I receive this mysterious message several times when compiling a new kernel an
automatically build virtualbox-ose-kmod-4.3.10. What is this supposed to mean?
===> Deinstalling for emulators/virtualbox-ose-kmod
===> Deinsta
11 matches
Mail list logo
