From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 19 14:46:34 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 482C1106566B; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 14:46:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gjb@semihalf.com) Received: from smtp.semihalf.com (smtp.semihalf.com [213.17.239.109]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED2798FC17; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 14:46:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [213.17.239.109]) by smtp.semihalf.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15AFDC42D4; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:48:30 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at semihalf.com Received: from smtp.semihalf.com ([213.17.239.109]) by localhost (smtp.semihalf.com [213.17.239.109]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hhYP3PwoprhR; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:48:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.12] (acyv59.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl [83.11.205.59]) by smtp.semihalf.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 6CA9AC42D3; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:48:27 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4B7EA424.6090203@semihalf.com> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:45:56 +0100 From: Grzegorz Bernacki User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20090618) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Tinguely References: <201002191413.o1JEDFpF018272@casselton.net> In-Reply-To: <201002191413.o1JEDFpF018272@casselton.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: arm@freebsd.org, kostikbel@gmail.com, ticso@cicely7.cicely.de, ticso@cicely.de, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bind fails with sig11 on start / pthread failure on ARM? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 14:46:34 -0000 Mark Tinguely wrote: >> Some time ago we changed an address of RAS. Probably that's the problem. Please try >> with patch below. >> >> grzesiek > > Good job. > > IMO, ARM atomic.h should have cmpxchg and the other standard atomic routines > so applications don't roll their own and they become stale. > Yes, I agree. grzesiek