Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:44:17 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: Marko Zec <zec@FreeBSD.org>, FreeBSD virtualization mailing list <freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: kern/141696: [rum] [panic] rum(4)+ vimage = kernel panic Message-ID: <20091218094256.J86040@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> In-Reply-To: <4B2A7DC3.8000504@elischer.org> References: <200912171530.nBHFUDBO087113@freefall.freebsd.org> <4B2A7DC3.8000504@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Julian Elischer wrote: Hi Julian, > Venture37 wrote: >> The following reply was made to PR kern/141696; it has been noted by GNATS. >> >> From: Venture37 <venture37@geeklan.co.uk> >> To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, venture37@geeklan.co.uk >> Cc: Subject: Re: kern/141696: [rum] [panic] rum(4)+ vimage = kernel panic >> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:25:28 +0000 >> >> Photo of the trace output >> http://img64.imageshack.us/i/img1517.jpg/ > > Marko, et al. > > looking at this, the crash is in > > ifindex_alloc_locked() > from: > if_alloc() > rum_attach() > device_attach() > device_probe_and_attach() > usb_probe_and_attach_sub() > usb_probe_and_attach() > uhub_explore() > usb_bus_explore() > usb_process() > > the question is "where should we load the current vnet? > > is it up to the driver (if_rum) or should device_attach assume that the > resulting device MIGHT be a network device. Different question - why is it a problem for rum/usb whne it's not a problem for all the other physical interfaces like bge, bce, em, .... or have we just not noticed what happens if we have them as module and attach at run-time? /bz -- Bjoern A. Zeeb It will not break if you know what you are doing.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20091218094256.J86040>