On 08/02/2010 14:07, Robert Milkowski wrote:
On 05/02/2010 15:25, Jürgen Keil wrote:
Robert Milkowski wrote:
On 03/02/2010 12:25, Jürgen Keil wrote:
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Toshiba R600, up-to snv_129 X is working fine.
snv_131 and the moment Xorg starts the notebook does hard-reset
(quick
On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 07:25:52 -0800, Jürgen Keil wrote:
> Robert Milkowski wrote:
>> On 03/02/2010 12:25, Jürgen Keil wrote:
>> > Robert Milkowski wrote:
>> >
>> >> Toshiba R600, up-to snv_129 X is working fine. snv_131 and the moment
>> >> Xorg starts the notebook does hard-reset (quick power-off)
On 05/02/2010 15:25, Jürgen Keil wrote:
Robert Milkowski wrote:
On 03/02/2010 12:25, Jürgen Keil wrote:
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Toshiba R600, up-to snv_129 X is working fine.
snv_131 and the moment Xorg starts the notebook does hard-reset (quick
power-off) - no crash dump, n
Robert Milkowski wrote:
> On 03/02/2010 12:25, Jürgen Keil wrote:
> > Robert Milkowski wrote:
> >
> >> Toshiba R600, up-to snv_129 X is working fine.
> >> snv_131 and the moment Xorg starts the notebook does hard-reset (quick
> >> power-off) - no crash dump, no nothing, When I booted under kernel
>
On 03/02/2010 12:25, Jürgen Keil wrote:
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Toshiba R600, up-to snv_129 X is working fine.
snv_131 and the moment Xorg starts the notebook does hard-reset (quick
power-off) - no crash dump, no nothing, When I booted under kernel
debugger the box just hangs and I can't go
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:36:51 -0500, John Martin wrote:
>> I'm happily running on my Tecra M10. I don't know what the circumstances
>> are exactly, but I am definitely not experiencing panics.
>
> One model has NVIDIA graphics, the other Intel. This issue is particular
> to the Intel models.
And
I'm happily running on my Tecra M10. I don't know what the
circumstances are exactly, but I am definitely not experiencing panics.
One model has NVIDIA graphics, the other Intel.
This issue is particular to the Intel models.
___
opensolaris-discuss ma
I'm happily running on my Tecra M10. I don't know what the circumstances
are exactly, but I am definitely not experiencing panics.
-- Alan
On 02/ 3/10 02:48 PM, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:04:15 -0800, Jürgen Keil wrote:
The stack matches that in 6914386 which is possibly a dupli
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:04:15 -0800, Jürgen Keil wrote:
>> >> The stack matches that in 6914386 which is possibly a duplicate of
>> >> 6911372 which is fixed in snv_131. This was introduced in b130, so it
>> >> fits your problem.
>> >>
>> >> My suggestion would be to jump back to b129 (or whatever
> >> The stack matches that in 6914386 which is possibly a duplicate of
> >> 6911372 which is fixed in snv_131. This was introduced in b130, so it
> >> fits your problem.
> >>
> >> My suggestion would be to jump back to b129 (or whatever was your last
> >> stable one) and upgrade to b131 which is
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 04:18:13 -0800, Jürgen Keil wrote:
>> The stack matches that in 6914386 which is possibly a duplicate of
>> 6911372 which is fixed in snv_131. This was introduced in b130, so it
>> fits your problem.
>>
>> My suggestion would be to jump back to b129 (or whatever was your last
Robert Milkowski wrote:
> Toshiba R600, up-to snv_129 X is working fine.
> snv_131 and the moment Xorg starts the notebook does hard-reset (quick
> power-off) - no crash dump, no nothing, When I booted under kernel
> debugger the box just hangs and I can't go into the debugger.
>
> I tried to boo
> The stack matches that in 6914386 which is possibly a duplicate of
> 6911372 which is fixed in snv_131. This was introduced in b130, so it
> fits your problem.
>
> My suggestion would be to jump back to b129 (or whatever was your last
> stable one) and upgrade to b131 which is currently avail
On 01/29/10 04:19 PM, Bruce Porter wrote:
ff0007f7c420 vpanic()
ff0007f7c4d0 hat_devload+0x20f(ff01be68ae78, ff017b01b000, 1000,
3c000, 3, 1)
ff0007f7c530 rootnex_map_regspec+0x129(ff0007f7c540, c0059e48)
ff0007f7c5e0 rootnex_map+0x141(ff01bf82ecb0,
>
>
>
>
> Bruce wrote:
> cite="mid:pan.2010.01.28.16.12.18.107...@ytc1.co.uk"
> type="cite">
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:05:41 +,
> Brian Ruthven - Sun UK wrote:
>
>
>
> e Porter wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi,
> hile ago I tried to jump from 111b to something
> around 129, but I
Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:05:41 +, Brian Ruthven - Sun UK wrote:
Bruce Porter wrote:
Hi,
While ago I tried to jump from 111b to something around 129, but I run
into:
http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=12380
I can actually get as far as 12
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:05:41 +, Brian Ruthven - Sun UK wrote:
>
>
> Bruce Porter wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> While ago I tried to jump from 111b to something around 129, but I run
>>> into:
>>> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=12380
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I can actually get as far as
On 28/01/2010 14:05, Brian Ruthven - Sun UK wrote:
Bruce Porter wrote:
Hi,
While ago I tried to jump from 111b to something
around 129, but I run into:
http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=12380
I can actually get as far as 129 (but slow boot and login puts me off), my re
Bruce Porter wrote:
Hi,
While ago I tried to jump from 111b to something
around 129, but I run into:
http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=12380
I can actually get as far as 129 (but slow boot and login puts me off), my real
big problems start at 130 (the blank screen actua
> Hi,
>
> While ago I tried to jump from 111b to something
> around 129, but I run into:
> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=12380
>
I can actually get as far as 129 (but slow boot and login puts me off), my real
big problems start at 130 (the blank screen actually becomes a hard
20 matches
Mail list logo
