gwes wrote:
> On 5/25/21 10:26 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 04:15:26PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> >>> Wouldn't be too hard. But unless you're on a serial console, that
> >>> will probably be more than a screenful of information, so not
On 5/25/21 10:26 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Alexander Bluhm wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 04:15:26PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
Wouldn't be too hard. But unless you're on a serial console, that
will probably be more than a screenful of information, so not terribly
useful.
The most important
Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 04:15:26PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Wouldn't be too hard. But unless you're on a serial console, that
> > will probably be more than a screenful of information, so not terribly
> > useful.
>
> The most important things must fit on the firs
On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 04:15:26PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> Wouldn't be too hard. But unless you're on a serial console, that
> will probably be more than a screenful of information, so not terribly
> useful.
The most important things must fit on the first VGA screen. Then
user can make a p
> From: Scott Cheloha
> Date: Tue, 25 May 2021 08:42:05 -0500
>
> > On May 25, 2021, at 08:20, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> >
> > Scott Cheloha wrote:
> >
> >>> On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 10:12:53PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> >>> On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 01:35:53AM +0200, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> >
Scott Cheloha wrote:
> > If the 2nd cpu to enter panic actually has a more relevant panic, now
> > it will be missed.
>
> I said we could keep the printing. I even
> kept the printing in my latest patch. So I
> don't know what you're arguing against
> here.
You start spinning cpus inside panic
> On May 25, 2021, at 08:20, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>
> Scott Cheloha wrote:
>
>>> On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 10:12:53PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
>>> On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 01:35:53AM +0200, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 02:00:54PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> Given a
Scott Cheloha wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 10:12:53PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> > On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 01:35:53AM +0200, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 02:00:54PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> > > > Given all of this, would it be better if secondary CPUs spin in
>
Scott Cheloha wrote:
> On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 01:35:53AM +0200, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 02:00:54PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> > > Given all of this, would it be better if secondary CPUs spin in
> > > panic(9) instead of trying to print anything?
> >
> > The panic c
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 10:12:53PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 01:35:53AM +0200, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 02:00:54PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> > > Given all of this, would it be better if secondary CPUs spin in
> > > panic(9) instead of trying
On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 01:35:53AM +0200, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 02:00:54PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> > Given all of this, would it be better if secondary CPUs spin in
> > panic(9) instead of trying to print anything?
>
> The panic code should be as primitive as possi
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 02:00:54PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> Given all of this, would it be better if secondary CPUs spin in
> panic(9) instead of trying to print anything?
The panic code should be as primitive as possible. The garbled
output also tells me something. Two CPUs are failing sim
On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 01:15:28PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Sat, 15 May 2021 11:06:39 +
> > From: Visa Hankala
> >
> > On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 07:08:39PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> > > In a separate mail thread, bluhm@ mentioned that panic(9) does not
> > > cleanly handle mult
> Date: Sat, 15 May 2021 11:06:39 +
> From: Visa Hankala
>
> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 07:08:39PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> > In a separate mail thread, bluhm@ mentioned that panic(9) does not
> > cleanly handle multiple CPUs entering it simultaneously:
> >
> > https://marc.info/?l=openbsd
On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 07:08:39PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> In a separate mail thread, bluhm@ mentioned that panic(9) does not
> cleanly handle multiple CPUs entering it simultaneously:
>
> https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=161908805925325&w=2
>
> I'm unsure which part of panic(9) is causi
On Thu, May 13 2021, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> On Wed, May 12 2021, Scott Cheloha wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In a separate mail thread, bluhm@ mentioned that panic(9) does not
>> cleanly handle multiple CPUs entering it simultaneously:
>>
>> https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=161908805925325&w=
On Wed, May 12 2021, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In a separate mail thread, bluhm@ mentioned that panic(9) does not
> cleanly handle multiple CPUs entering it simultaneously:
>
> https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=161908805925325&w=2
>
> I'm unsure which part of panic(9) is causing the problem
On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 07:08:39PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> I'm unsure which part of panic(9) is causing the problem he mentions,
I was talking about this:
r620-1# papnpaiancini:cc :p :op
opooolo_llc_ac_caccahhceh_ei_eti_tieetmme_mm__amgamigacigci__cc_hccehhcekcekc::
k :m bmubmfubfuppflp ll
On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 07:08:39PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In a separate mail thread, bluhm@ mentioned that panic(9) does not
> cleanly handle multiple CPUs entering it simultaneously:
>
> https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=161908805925325&w=2
>
> I'm unsure which part of panic(9)
Nicer than the garble...
It would be nice if we could see all the panics. Could we also have a
per-cpu panic buffer, and then adapt ddb to show them all?
Scott Cheloha wrote:
> In a separate mail thread, bluhm@ mentioned that panic(9) does not
> cleanly handle multiple CPUs entering it simulta
Hi,
In a separate mail thread, bluhm@ mentioned that panic(9) does not
cleanly handle multiple CPUs entering it simultaneously:
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=161908805925325&w=2
I'm unsure which part of panic(9) is causing the problem he mentions,
but one obvious issue I see is that panics
21 matches
Mail list logo
