Re: kern/56737: WDCTL_RST errors in 9.99.92 and 9.99.93

[Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR kern/56737; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
To: gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
Cc: kern-bug-people%netbsd.org@localhost, gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost, netbsd-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost,
        RNESTOR%MAC.COM@localhost
Subject: Re: kern/56737: WDCTL_RST errors in 9.99.92 and 9.99.93
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2023 18:30:15 +0100

 On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 03:35:01PM +0000, Martin Husemann wrote:
 > The following reply was made to PR kern/56737; it has been noted by GNATS.
 > 
 > From: Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost>
 > To: Robert Nestor <rnestor%mac.com@localhost>
 > Cc: gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
 > Subject: Re: kern/56737: WDCTL_RST errors in 9.99.92 and 9.99.93
 > Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2023 16:33:04 +0100
 > 
 >  On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 08:01:38AM -0600, Robert Nestor wrote:
 >  
 >  > Didn?t see a single failure in booting, but did see one kernel crash on
 >  > a ?shutdown -r now? between boots.  Unfortunately it didn?t take a dump
 >  > but it seemed to be near where the boot disk was being detached.
 >  
 >  That sounds a bit like one of the other two extra delays - I wonder if we
 >  should just make them all non-optional. Manuel, what do you think?
 
 The delays were probably there for a reason, although I don't remember
 exactly why. I don't know how the delays could affect shutdown though
 (I should look again at the code but I don't have time right now)
 
 Making then all non-optional again is probably the safest.
 
 -- 
 Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
      NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
 --