From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8ddee0ffa7f8954043d7bf426cf19497@quintile.net> References: <05B9A9E7-83BA-4EBE-AC4F-22F414ABB5A5@orthanc.ca> <8ddee0ffa7f8954043d7bf426cf19497@quintile.net> Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 11:43:46 +0100 Message-ID: From: Charles Forsyth To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b66f33dd736f504fa5f5e08 Subject: Re: [9fans] Too many checkpages() diagnostics ... Topicbox-Message-UUID: f212ee94-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --047d7b66f33dd736f504fa5f5e08 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 27 May 2014 00:41, Steve Simon wrote: > its not the lack of he new > nsec() systemcall biteing you is it? > that wouldn't lead to checkpages faults, which appear when processes trap on bad addresses. i'd suspect an inconsistency between the source (eg, paging or lock data structures) and existing object files. It could be that some other structure has changed (for instance Block acquired a magic value a few months ago). Ordinarily I'd expect that to be caught by the -T compilation option and loader checks, but perhaps those aren't on by default. --047d7b66f33dd736f504fa5f5e08 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On 27 May 2014 00:41, Steve Simon <steve@quintile.net> wrot= e:
its not the lack = of he new
nsec() systemcall biteing you is it?

that would= n't lead to checkpages faults, which appear when processes trap on bad = addresses.
i'd suspect an inconsistency= between the source (eg, paging or lock data structures) and existing objec= t files.
It could be that some other structure has change= d (for instance Block acquired a magic value a few months ago).
Ordinarily I'd expect that to be caught by the -T = compilation option and loader checks, but perhaps those aren't on by de= fault.
--047d7b66f33dd736f504fa5f5e08--