On 27-Jan-2003 Morten Rodal wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 03:27:00PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
>> Do you still have the kernel.debug from this kernel lying around?
>> Can you pop gdb up on it and do 'l *0xc01bdb48' please? That is
>> the instruction pointer from the fault and will give the li
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 03:27:00PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> Do you still have the kernel.debug from this kernel lying around?
> Can you pop gdb up on it and do 'l *0xc01bdb48' please? That is
> the instruction pointer from the fault and will give the line that
> the actual panic occurred at.
>
On 25-Jan-2003 Morten Rodal wrote:
> Is this a known panic? I tried to search the mailinglist archives to
> see if somebody had posted something similar, but I couldn't find
> anything.
>
> The system is running 5.0-RELEASE with a pretty standard kernel (just
> removed all the drivers I don't us
On 25-Jan-2003 Nate Lawson wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2003, Morten Rodal wrote:
>> The system is running 5.0-RELEASE with a pretty standard kernel (just
>> removed all the drivers I don't use and added SMP support). I think
>> the load of the system might have been high at the moment as I had
>> jus
On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 12:38:28PM -0800, Nate Lawson wrote:
> The question is, why? I suspect something to do with memory due to the
> second two bytes being a valid kernel address. How about a dmesg?
>
[forgot to cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Are you suspecting faulty memory?
See attached dmesg.boo
On Sat, 25 Jan 2003, Morten Rodal wrote:
> The system is running 5.0-RELEASE with a pretty standard kernel (just
> removed all the drivers I don't use and added SMP support). I think
> the load of the system might have been high at the moment as I had
> just started
>
> cd /usr/ports && make -j
