problem with sk?

Michael Gerhards HM-Gerhards at
Mon May 8 16:24:42 UTC 2006

David Nugent <davidn at> wrote:
>>But by browsing through this list I found the thread "sk0: watchdog timeout"
>>and the problem described there is quite similiar to what I get here. So
>>perhaps this bug in the sk driver is also the cause for my trouble here?!
> Possibly (and even likely). It sounds like a very severe case of the 
> same thing.

I should add that the system was under quite heavy load doing an
"portupgrade". Perhaps that triggered the problem a bit, too.

>>Can I somehow use this patch for sk0 _without_ changing everything to 
>>-current? Acutually, I wanted to stay to 6.1-RELEASE... 
> Apparently the timeout problem is fixed in -CURRENT, and will be merged 
> after 6.1-RELEASE. Enjoy.

Sounds good to me. I guess this won't be more than a few days, perhaps
1-2 weeks?!

> Tracking -STABLE is a Good Thing, IMHO, quite aside from the security 
> updates, bugs which don't even affect you right now (but may do 
> sometime) get fixed, and the -STABLE tag tends to be quite appropriate.  

I am quite new to FreeBSD and so I am not that familiar with all these
things. But I read at some places that -STABLE is not always really
stable and should not be used on productive systems. So I thought
-RELEASE might be the correct choice for me.

But I see your arguments - perhaps I will change my mind and really
track -STABLE.

> I only ever used -RELEASE media for the initial install. A system I run 
> at home was originally installed from FreeBSD 3.0-CURRENT, also now 
> running a mid-Feb 6.1-PRERELEASE, upgraded from sources many many times 
> over (build world+kernel takes just under 3 days). :-)


On my Pentium2-300 I certainly will not upgrade that often... ;-) But on
my other machinese (Athlon XP 2600+, Athlon 64 X2 3800+) building world
and kernel is not that time-consumpting any more... :-)


More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list