[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: page fault in mach_msg_trap
From: |
Jeff Bailey |
Subject: |
Re: page fault in mach_msg_trap |
Date: |
Thu, 17 May 2001 08:15:54 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 10:28:32PM +0000, Adam Olsen wrote:
> My thinking was that a hltonpanic=1 kernel argument would be good.
> The advantage over a configure option is that it doesn't require a
> recompile to use.
If we're coping with a kernel panic, can we count on a kernel
parameter still being in tact?
This is where I prove that I don't know much about systems
programming. Feel free to ignore me. =)
Tks,
Jeff Bailey
- page fault in mach_msg_trap, Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/05/10
- Re: page fault in mach_msg_trap, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/05/13
- Re: page fault in mach_msg_trap, Igor Khavkine, 2001/05/16
- Re: page fault in mach_msg_trap, Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/05/16
- Re: page fault in mach_msg_trap, OKUJI Yoshinori, 2001/05/17
- Re: page fault in mach_msg_trap, Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/05/17
- Re: page fault in mach_msg_trap, OKUJI Yoshinori, 2001/05/17
- Re: page fault in mach_msg_trap, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/05/17
- Re: page fault in mach_msg_trap, Jeff Bailey, 2001/05/16
- Re: page fault in mach_msg_trap, Adam Olsen, 2001/05/16
- Re: page fault in mach_msg_trap,
Jeff Bailey <=
- Re: page fault in mach_msg_trap, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/05/17
- Re: page fault in mach_msg_trap, Roland McGrath, 2001/05/16