On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 02:37:36PM -0700, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
> Ed,
>
> Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
> >On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:46:57AM -0700, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
> >>Ed,
> >>
> >>I've posted an updated webrev to address your comments.
> >>
> >>http://cr.opensolaris.org/~gjelinek/webrev.6768950/
>
Ed,
Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:46:57AM -0700, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
Ed,
I've posted an updated webrev to address your comments.
http://cr.opensolaris.org/~gjelinek/webrev.6768950/
usr/src/uts/intel/brand/sn1/sn1_brand_asm.s
- i'd think the "is 0 <= syscall <= MAX"
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:46:57AM -0700, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
> Ed,
>
> I've posted an updated webrev to address your comments.
>
> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~gjelinek/webrev.6768950/
>
usr/src/uts/intel/brand/sn1/sn1_brand_asm.s
- i'd think the "is 0 <= syscall <= MAX" check would have to be
And finally, I have had this script run on a real, OSOL build 127 box for a day
now.
can not reproduce it there either.
So I failed to reproduce this at all using the script on:
- ONNV 129 (zfs root, 1 cpu)
- ONNV 126 (ufs root, 2 cpus)
- OSOL 127 (zfs root, 4 cores)
there must be something sp
Günther Schmidt wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to create a clone from a specific snapshot using zoneadm, but
this feature seems to be broken in OSOL 2009.06.
Is there another way of doing this?
This is bug:
5940 Cannot create clone of zone from snapshot
To workaround this you can make a clone of
Ed,
I've posted an updated webrev to address your comments.
http://cr.opensolaris.org/~gjelinek/webrev.6768950/
Let me know if you have any other comments or see anything
with the changes I made.
Thanks,
Jerry
___
zones-discuss mailing list
zones-dis
Jordan Vaughan wrote:
--
usr/src/lib/brand/sn1/sn1_brand/amd64/sn1_handler.s
44: Shouldn't this function be named "sn1_handler_table"?
Jordan,
Good catch, I'll fix that.
Thanks,
Jerry
___
zones-discuss mailing list
zones-discuss@opensolaris
Glenn, I've not been able to reproduce this on onnv build 126 (it's running for
a day now)
if that script would reproduce 6894901 straight away it should be doing so
on 126 as well (similar to what you've seen in 127)
this pose the question if there are either some other details in your
environm
