Sean C. Farley wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Sam Leffler wrote:
Folks having problems with ath on releng7 should try the attached
patch.
It fixed the panic when SuperG was activated on the wireless router for
me. Thank you!
Guy Coleman gets any credit; I just recognized what the root cause
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Paul B. Mahol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/22/08, Zaphod Beeblebrox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In several of the recent ZFS posts, multiple people have asked when this
> > will be MFC'd to 7.x. This query has been studiously ignored as other
> > chatter
On 11/22/08, Zaphod Beeblebrox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In several of the recent ZFS posts, multiple people have asked when this
> will be MFC'd to 7.x. This query has been studiously ignored as other
> chatter about whatever ZFS issue is discussed.
>
> So in a post with no other bug report or
In several of the recent ZFS posts, multiple people have asked when this
will be MFC'd to 7.x. This query has been studiously ignored as other
chatter about whatever ZFS issue is discussed.
So in a post with no other bug report or discussion content to distract us,
when is it intended that ZFS be
On 2008-11-22 08:09:31AM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2008-Nov-21 00:07:26 -0800, hamtilla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I'm running 7.0-RELEASE-i386 on Jetway's NC92-N230 mainboard. The board has
> >one integrated RTL8168/8111 gigabit NIC as well as an expansion board with
> >three RTL8168/8111
On 2008-Nov-21 00:07:26 -0800, hamtilla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm running 7.0-RELEASE-i386 on Jetway's NC92-N230 mainboard. The board has
>one integrated RTL8168/8111 gigabit NIC as well as an expansion board with
>three RTL8168/8111 NICs. Why would the three NICs work while the onboard NIC
>
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Sam Leffler wrote:
Folks having problems with ath on releng7 should try the attached
patch.
It fixed the panic when SuperG was activated on the wireless router for
me. Thank you!
Sean
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
freebsd-stable@fre
Jordi Espasa Clofent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm upgrading a FreeBSD amd64 box from 6.2p9 to 7.0p5.
> After update the sources amd make world with success, I get this error:
>
> [...]
> newfs.lo(.text+0x659): In function `main':
> : undefined reference to `__mb_sb_limit'
> newfs_
On Friday 21 November 2008 18:39:33 Ulrich Spoerlein wrote:
> On Thu, 20.11.2008 at 17:56:07 -0500, Michael Proto wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Ulrich Spoerlein
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm running my RELENG_7 kernel with WITNESS and there's always a LOR
> > >
I've got a Tandberg TS 400 LTO-2 drive in a Dell PE1800 which is
wedging ahc(4) after writing about 5 GB of data.
I've attached dmesg.boot.
uname -a:
FreeBSD phoenix.simons-rock.edu 7.1-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 7.1-PRERELEASE #0: Fri
Oct 17 23:17:38 EDT 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys
On Thu, 20.11.2008 at 15:22:04 -0800, Sean Bruno wrote:
> > And there are these LORs when I shut down my external firewire attached
> > disk:
> >
> > fwohci0: BUS reset
> > fwohci0: node_id=0xc800ffc1, gen=2, CYCLEMASTER mode
> > firewire0: 2 nodes, maxhop <= 1, cable IRM = 1 (me)
> > firewire0: bu
On Thu, 20.11.2008 at 17:56:07 -0500, Michael Proto wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Ulrich Spoerlein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm running my RELENG_7 kernel with WITNESS and there's always a LOR
> > when pf(4) is enabled:
> >
> > lock order reversal:
> > 1st 0xc09ca828 i
on 21/11/2008 18:48 Gavin Atkinson said the following:
> On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 17:16 +0100, Joerg Wunsch wrote:
>> As Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>
>>> Now:
>>>
>>> (0x44 << 1) & 0xff == (0xc4 << 1) & 0xff = 0x88 (looks like RTC)
>>> (0x50 << 1) & 0xff == (0xd0 << 1) & 0xff = 0xa0 (well known SPD addr)
>>
Folks having problems with ath on releng7 should try the attached patch.
Sam
Index: ieee80211_freebsd.h
===
RCS file: /usr/ncvs/src/sys/net80211/ieee80211_freebsd.h,v
retrieving revision 1.15.2.1
diff -u -r1.15.2.1 ieee80211_free
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 17:16 +0100, Joerg Wunsch wrote:
> As Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
> > Now:
> >
> > (0x44 << 1) & 0xff == (0xc4 << 1) & 0xff = 0x88 (looks like RTC)
> > (0x50 << 1) & 0xff == (0xd0 << 1) & 0xff = 0xa0 (well known SPD addr)
> > (0x52 << 1) & 0xff == (0xd2 << 1) & 0xff = 0xa4 (well k
As Andriy Gapon wrote:
> Now:
>
> (0x44 << 1) & 0xff == (0xc4 << 1) & 0xff = 0x88 (looks like RTC)
> (0x50 << 1) & 0xff == (0xd0 << 1) & 0xff = 0xa0 (well known SPD addr)
> (0x52 << 1) & 0xff == (0xd2 << 1) & 0xff = 0xa4 (well known SPD addr)
> (0x80 << 1) & 0xff = 0x0 (mentioned above "global ad
On November 21, 2008 06:41 am Gerrit Kühn wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:15:18 +0100 Gerrit Kühn
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about Re: Curious failure of ZFS
> snapshots:
>
> GK> Right now 3 of them are fine, and one is showing the same problem
> you GK> described:
> GK>
> GK> mclane# ll /tank/hom
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Rudy wrote:
Speaking of losing data on a ZFS system, I haven't yet (knock on wood) had a
disk failure. Anyone have a disk failure occur and have an easy/hard time
replacing the bad disk?
I had a bad cable and also a bad disk. zpool scrub would whine about
checksum err
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:02:07 +0200 Nikolay Denev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
about Re: Curious failure of ZFS snapshots:
ND> I've experienced this problem in the past :
ND> http://markmail.org/message/tmle6lqmkfit46ho
Yes, that looks quite the same (even the panic).
ND> But the machine I was havin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 21 Nov, 2008, at 16:41 , Gerrit Kühn wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:15:18 +0100 Gerrit Kühn
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about Re: Curious failure of ZFS
snapshots:
GK> Right now 3 of them are fine, and one is showing the same
problem you
GK> de
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:15:18 +0100 Gerrit Kühn
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about Re: Curious failure of ZFS
snapshots:
GK> Right now 3 of them are fine, and one is showing the same problem you
GK> described:
GK>
GK> mclane# ll /tank/home/pt/.zfs/
GK> ls: snapshot: Bad file descriptor
GK> total 0
[
on 21/11/2008 15:55 Andriy Gapon said the following:
> It seems that smbmsg is another victim in "Great SMBus Slave Address
> Confusion" - there are two schools: one that think that slave address is
> (addr >> 1) and there other thinks that slave address is (addr & ~0x1).
> It seems that smb driver
Bartosz Stec wrote:
Stephen Clark pisze:
Do any of the firewall products on FreeBSD provide support
for a natted ftp server sitting behind the FreeBSD FW.
Without having the ftp server advertise the external address
in its passive mode packet, in other words have the firewall
product look insid
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:39:20 + Pete French
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about Curious failure of ZFS snapshots:
PF> On the box with the snapshots being created every day with the same
PF> name I quickly end up with unavailable snapshots, and the error
PF> message: 'Bad file descriptor'. On the ma
It seems that smbmsg is another victim in "Great SMBus Slave Address
Confusion" - there are two schools: one that think that slave address is
(addr >> 1) and there other thinks that slave address is (addr & ~0x1).
It seems that smb driver in FreeBSD takes the first approach, but smbmsg
is keen on
I have a couple of boxes here which make daily snapshots
of their filesystems. One just makes a snapshot at 7am, called '7am'
which it does by deleting the previous days and making a new one called
'7am'. The other has snapshots called 'today', 'yesterday', '2daysago'
etc, up to a week. It does thi
I wasn't sure where this belongs, so writing here.
This is stable/7 on Intel DG33TL:
$ pciconf -lv
...
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:3:0:0: class=0x01018f card=0x610111ab chip=0x610111ab
rev=0xb2 hdr=0x00
vendor = 'Marvell Semiconductor (Was: Galileo Technology Ltd)'
device = '6101 SATA2
Stephen Clark pisze:
Do any of the firewall products on FreeBSD provide support
for a natted ftp server sitting behind the FreeBSD FW.
Without having the ftp server advertise the external address
in its passive mode packet, in other words have the firewall
product look inside the packet and chan
Do any of the firewall products on FreeBSD provide support
for a natted ftp server sitting behind the FreeBSD FW.
Without having the ftp server advertise the external address
in its passive mode packet, in other words have the firewall
product look inside the packet and change the internal addres
Nenhum_de_Nos wrote:
> On Wed, November 19, 2008 6:05 am, Dominic Fandrey wrote:
>> I have recently been pointed to the u3g driver and gave it a try,
>> because UBSA works very unreliable for me.
>>
>> - In combination with PF-NAT I get kernel panics under high load.
>> - I have to hack some buffer
I'm running 7.0-RELEASE-i386 on Jetway's NC92-N230 mainboard. The board has
one integrated RTL8168/8111 gigabit NIC as well as an expansion board with
three RTL8168/8111 NICs. Why would the three NICs work while the onboard NIC
does not?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:1:0:0: class=0x02 card=0x81681
31 matches
Mail list logo
