Hello everybody,
on a Thinkpad X220 (Sandy Bridge/Cougar Point based) the installation
medium loads but halts during boot. I tested the following versions of
FreeBSD
* 8.2-RELEASE
* 9-CURRENT (latest official snapshot from 02/2011)
* 9-CURRENT (latest snapshot from Nathan Whitehorn as of 20/04/20
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 5:50 PM, deeptec...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 6:27 PM, deeptec...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> pcib1: at device 1.0 on pci0
>> pcib1: failed to allocate initial prefetch window: 0xd000-0xfaff
>>
>> this happens with a the r221862 kernel, but not with the
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 6:27 PM, deeptec...@gmail.com
wrote:
> pcib1: at device 1.0 on pci0
> pcib1: failed to allocate initial prefetch window: 0xd000-0xfaff
>
> this happens with a the r221862 kernel, but not with the r221309 kernel.
> a quick search reveals something:
> http://www.free
On 15.05.2011 22:05, Michiel Boland wrote:
> ioapic0: routing intpin 22 (GEOM_PART: integrity check failed (ada0, MBR)
Can you send me a binary image of the first sector of ada0?
Also, output of `gpart list ada0` would be helpful.
--
WBR, Andrey V. Elsukov
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP d
On May 15, 2011, at 20:29, FreeBSD Tinderbox wrote:
> ===> glxiic (all)
> cc -O2 -pipe -DPC98 -fno-strict-aliasing -Werror -D_KERNEL -DKLD_MODULE
> -nostdinc -DHAVE_KERNEL_OPTION_HEADERS -include
> /obj/pc98.i386/src/sys/LINT/opt_global.h -I. -I@ -I@/contrib/altq
> -finline-limit=8000 --param
TB --- 2011-05-15 16:10:00 - tinderbox 2.7 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-05-15 16:10:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for i386/pc98
TB --- 2011-05-15 16:10:00 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-05-15 16:10:20 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-05-15 16:10:20 - /usr/bin/c
TB --- 2011-05-15 16:10:00 - tinderbox 2.7 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-05-15 16:10:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for i386/i386
TB --- 2011-05-15 16:10:00 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-05-15 16:10:23 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-05-15 16:10:23 - /usr/bin/c
on 15/05/2011 18:16 John Baldwin said the following:
> On 5/15/11 10:53 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> on 15/05/2011 10:12 Andriy Gapon said the following:
>>> on 14/05/2011 18:25 John Baldwin said the following:
Hmmm, so this is not actually sufficient. NetApp ran into a very similar
race
on 15/05/2011 19:09 Max Laier said the following:
>
> I don't think we ever intended to synchronize the local teardown part, and I
> believe that is the correct behavior for this API.
>
> This version is sufficiently close to what I have, so I am resonably sure
> that
> it will work for us. I
On Sunday 15 May 2011 11:16:03 John Baldwin wrote:
> On 5/15/11 10:53 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> > on 15/05/2011 10:12 Andriy Gapon said the following:
> >> on 14/05/2011 18:25 John Baldwin said the following:
> >>> Hmmm, so this is not actually sufficient. NetApp ran into a very
> >>> similar race
2011/5/15 Dag-Erling Smørgrav :
> Attilio Rao writes:
>> Dag-Erling Smørgrav writes:
>> > Attilio Rao writes:
>> > > So, am I missing something when removing sun4v or the tinderbox
>> > > machine needs to be updated someway?
>> > Yes, you should have warned me in advance.
>> Ok, sorry for not do
Garrett Cooper writes:
> Why not use something like this with tinderbox?
>
> $ make -C /usr/src/ targets | awk 'NR > 1' | sed 's,/,:,g'
Because that's not how the tinderbox works; you may not necessarily want
to build all existing targets. I *could* modify the supervisor script
so it doesn't sta
Attilio Rao writes:
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav writes:
> > Attilio Rao writes:
> > > So, am I missing something when removing sun4v or the tinderbox
> > > machine needs to be updated someway?
> > Yes, you should have warned me in advance.
> Ok, sorry for not doing that.
>
> Can you please do somethin
2011/5/14 Attilio Rao :
> 2011/5/14 Dag-Erling Smørgrav :
>> Attilio Rao writes:
>>> So, am I missing something when removing sun4v or the tinderbox
>>> machine needs to be updated someway?
>>
>> Yes, you should have warned me in advance.
>
> Ok, sorry for not doing that.
>
> Can you please do som
On 5/15/11 10:53 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 15/05/2011 10:12 Andriy Gapon said the following:
on 14/05/2011 18:25 John Baldwin said the following:
Hmmm, so this is not actually sufficient. NetApp ran into a very similar race
with virtual CPUs in BHyVe. In their case because virtual CPUs are t
on 15/05/2011 10:12 Andriy Gapon said the following:
> on 14/05/2011 18:25 John Baldwin said the following:
>> Hmmm, so this is not actually sufficient. NetApp ran into a very similar
>> race
>> with virtual CPUs in BHyVe. In their case because virtual CPUs are threads
>> that
>> can be preempt
on 15/05/2011 07:33 Max Laier said the following:
> On Saturday 14 May 2011 11:25:36 John Baldwin wrote:
>> On 5/13/11 9:43 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>> This is a change in vein of what I've been doing in the xcpu branch and
>>> it's supposed to fix the issue by the recent commit that (probably
>>>
on 14/05/2011 18:25 John Baldwin said the following:
> Hmmm, so this is not actually sufficient. NetApp ran into a very similar race
> with virtual CPUs in BHyVe. In their case because virtual CPUs are threads
> that
> can be preempted, they have a chance at a longer race.
>
> The problem that
on 14/05/2011 18:25 John Baldwin said the following:
> On 5/13/11 9:43 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>
>> This is a change in vein of what I've been doing in the xcpu branch and it's
>> supposed to fix the issue by the recent commit that (probably
>> unintentionally)
>> stress-tests smp_rendezvous in T
19 matches
Mail list logo
