Re: One more .....

From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel_at_xcllnt.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 13:10:58 -0700
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 09:39:16PM +0200, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
> From: "Marcel Moolenaar" <marcel_at_xcllnt.net>
> > On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 07:30:31PM +0200, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
> > >
> > > panic: process 82471(sh):2 holds Giant but isn't blocked on a lock
> > >
> > > cpuid = 1;
> > > KDB: enter: panic
> > >
> > > Is there any purpose in reporting these crashes this way???
> >
> > You might want to make sure your debugger backend is DDB and not
> > GDB.
> 
> This is what I have:
> # Debugging for use in -current
> options         KDB                     # Enable kernel debugger support.
> options         KDB_TRACE
> options         DDB                     # Support DDB.
> options         GDB                     # Support remote GDB.
> options         INVARIANTS              # Enable calls of extra sanity checking
> options         INVARIANT_SUPPORT       # Extra sanity checks of internal struct
> ures, required by INVARIANTS
> options         WITNESS                 # Enable checks to detect deadlocks and
> cycles
> options         WITNESS_SKIPSPIN        # Don't run witness on spinlocks for spe
> ed
> 
> Next to having an SMP/Opteron system.

That's all good, and normally this gives you DDB as the default
debugger backend. Typically if you only see "KDB: enter: panic",
then KDB is using the GDB backend.

Hmmm...  It may be a good idea to tell people that. Somthing like:
	KDB: entering ddb: panic
or	KDB: entering gdb: bootflags requested debugger

-- 
 Marcel Moolenaar	  USPA: A-39004		 marcel_at_xcllnt.net
Received on Fri Jul 16 2004 - 18:10:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:02 UTC