[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
The following reply was made to PR port-alpha/35448; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: "Michael L. Hitch" <mhitch%lightning.msu.montana.edu@localhost>
Subject: Re: port-alpha/35448
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:54:58 -0700 (MST)
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012, Aaron J. Grier wrote:
> flogging a dead horse here, but figured it was time for an update.
> the RETREAT / ADVANCE patch in this PR definitely helped me with stability,
> although this problem itself may be alpha-specific.
As I remember, it only showed up with the alpha gcc, but did not seem to
be there for amd64 (I can't remember if I tried to check the sparc64 code
I think the discussion about this change had someone not liking the
RETREAT/ADVANCE patch (or names) I had at the time. I had thought about a
patch using a different macro name (ADJUSTUIO or something similar) so
that there was a single macro that would indicate the adjustment could go
either direction. I've been a bit (!) negligent on following up on this.
> the only idea I have for flushing out further bugs with the NFS
> retransmit code would be pounding on a UDP mount over a lossy link, IE
> purposely set mismatched duplex, crappy hub or switch, or a packet loss
I think (but it has been some time) I was able to replicate the problem
with just a cross-over link between my two CS20 machines. Only one of
them is running at this time, so I'm not sure how easily I could
replicate it now. Maybe that would be a good opportunity to power up my
1000A and update it.
> since this patch does no harm and improves at least alpha, could it be
> applied to current and pulled-up to NetBSD-6?
I think NetBSD-6 has a newer version of gcc since then, and I would want
to verify that the patch is still needed before commiting anything.
Michael L. Hitch mhitch%montana.edu@localhost
Information Technology Center
Montana State University Bozeman, MT USA
Main Index |
Thread Index |