On 11/11/18 11:10, Guido Falsi wrote: > On 11/11/18 00:07, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 05:27:09PM +0100, Guido Falsi wrote: >>> On 10/11/18 13:08, Guido Falsi wrote: >>>> I'll to bisect things, but it will be a slow process. >>> >>> I narrowed it down to r339895. >> I somehow doubt that this is the case. >> > > I did not mean to accuse you. Instead thanks for this reply and the > suggestions. Really appreciated. > > I simply found out that removing that commit from my sources gives me a > stable system and reported such finding. > > I understand that the actual cause could be an interaction with other > code and am ready to review my findings. > >> If you take post-r339895 kernel and start e.g. 11.2-RELEASE userspace >> (untar the installation into jail to avoid reinstallation), does it >> still demonstrate the behaviour ? >> >> Also try to run pre-r339895 with the 12.0 userspace from e.g. 12.0-BETA4 >> builds. > > I'll perform such tests. Please allow me some time to report back what I > get. I performed these tests. I downloaded the 12.0-BETA4 and 11.2 installation images and replaced the kernels in there. This was faster than working with jails on a crippled system. r339895 kernel on 11.2-RELEASE causes fsck (launched by rc) to dump core and this stops the boot procedure. r339894 kernel on 12.0-BETA4 works fine. -- Guido Falsi <mad_at_madpilot.net>Received on Sun Nov 11 2018 - 18:44:40 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:19 UTC