Hi
Summary: here is a little report about LD_DEBUG issues
I've mentioned a few weeks ago in the dlerror thread.
There seems to be some corruption related to ld.so
printing to stderr, although I couldn't yet find
where.
I've been doing some test to catch a bug present in my syst
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:32:43AM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Richard Braun, on Mon 14 Mar 2016 23:37:33 +0100, wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 06:27:24PM -0400, David Michael wrote:
> > > After poking around a bit more, it seems that the space is eaten by
> > > debug info. Appending -g0 t
Richard Braun, on Mon 14 Mar 2016 23:37:33 +0100, wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 06:27:24PM -0400, David Michael wrote:
> > After poking around a bit more, it seems that the space is eaten by
> > debug info. Appending -g0 to CFLAGS allowed gnumach to boot
> > successfully and resulted in this:
>
Hello,
I've catched an ext2fs that is blocked in fsync & similar. This is
apparently not a deadlock, but a livelock.
- Threads 10, 5, 4, 3, 1 seem to be in normal waiting state
- Threads 9 and 7 are both waiting for the 0x89a6b6c mutex, held by thread 8
- Threads 6 and 8 are stuck in disk_cache_b
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 06:27:24PM -0400, David Michael wrote:
> > The realtek board shouldn't be working without DDE... Something looks
> > wrong in your test setup.
>
> I've been using it almost exclusively for the last three or four years
> without DDE. It works fine for me until I try to chan
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Richard Braun wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 05:38:06PM -0500, David Michael wrote:
>> I didn't get a chance to try with Debian yet, but after looking a bit
>> more, the failure I'm getting is from linux_kmem_init() allocating
>> memory. It panics in vm_page_gra
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 02:35:13PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 14:23 +0100, Richard Braun wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 02:16:17PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > Svante Signell, on Mon 14 Mar 2016 12:20:18 +0100, wrote:
> > > > Why, because it doesn't have a sleep
Svante Signell, on Mon 14 Mar 2016 14:35:13 +0100, wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 14:23 +0100, Richard Braun wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 02:16:17PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > Svante Signell, on Mon 14 Mar 2016 12:20:18 +0100, wrote:
> > > > Why, because it doesn't have a sleep state
On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 14:23 +0100, Richard Braun wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 02:16:17PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Svante Signell, on Mon 14 Mar 2016 12:20:18 +0100, wrote:
> > > Why, because it doesn't have a sleep statement?
> >
> > I was referring to strict logic: it's not just beca
Svante Signell, on Mon 14 Mar 2016 14:29:56 +0100, wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 12:20 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 12:02 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>
> > > > And with my old implementation it worked perfectly too.
> > >
> > > Because it was synchronous, which was po
On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 12:20 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 12:02 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > And with my old implementation it worked perfectly too.
> >
> > Because it was synchronous, which was posing other problems.
Yet the problem is if the implementation should
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 02:16:17PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Svante Signell, on Mon 14 Mar 2016 12:20:18 +0100, wrote:
> > Why, because it doesn't have a sleep statement?
>
> I was referring to strict logic: it's not just because it happens to
Also, using sleep for synchronization is always
Svante Signell, on Mon 14 Mar 2016 12:20:18 +0100, wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 12:02 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Svante Signell, on Mon 14 Mar 2016 09:05:56 +0100, wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 00:57 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > > Svante Signell, on Sun 13 Mar 2016 14:19:35 +01
On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 12:02 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Svante Signell, on Mon 14 Mar 2016 09:05:56 +0100, wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 00:57 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > Svante Signell, on Sun 13 Mar 2016 14:19:35 +0100, wrote:
> > > > Running the code reveals that the current imple
Svante Signell, on Mon 14 Mar 2016 09:05:56 +0100, wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 00:57 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Svante Signell, on Sun 13 Mar 2016 14:19:35 +0100, wrote:
> > > Running the code reveals that the current implementation in glibc is
> > > buggy:
> > >
> > > ./scm_rights+cred
Hi Vasily,
On 03/14/2016 09:00 AM, Vasily A. Sartakov wrote:
> this is a good initiative, I like it.
>
> Also, it seems to me, the content of the site can be enhanced by
> getting-started matherials of relevant projects, or (I prefer), MOOC project
> about microkernels with basics, history, arc
On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 00:57 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Svante Signell, on Sun 13 Mar 2016 14:19:35 +0100, wrote:
> > Running the code reveals that the current implementation in glibc is buggy:
> >
> > ./scm_rights+creds_recv
> > Number of SCM_RIGHTS [<=3], SCM_CREDS [<=2]: [1,1]
Greetings
this is a good initiative, I like it.
Also, it seems to me, the content of the site can be enhanced by
getting-started matherials of relevant projects, or (I prefer), MOOC project
about microkernels with basics, history, architectures and examples based on
different projects. Also, t
18 matches
Mail list logo
