Re: Kernel 9.1 panic with azalia

[tlaronde%polynum.com@localhost]

On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 06:49:17AM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
> Also any reason to use 9.1 instead of 9.2 or 9.2_STABLE?
> (Not that I think it would make a difference for azalia)

Practical reason: I start to update the node I'm doing my main
programing/developing work on and I then, after having verified that
things are rolling and with some delay---specially if the node is a 
remote production server that it is not possible to update easily and
for safety only when I have physical access to it in case of problem
(this time: there was)---I put other nodes in sync to not have to
cross-compile between NetBSD versions.

When I updated the developing node, NetBSD was at 9.1.

Since, for what I know (not much), virtualization always(?) present a
defined common pseudo-hardware interface, I imagine that there is no
virtualization that will allow to test a kernel in a VM,
with access to an image of the real hardware present, so that one
can verify that a tentative kernel will run on the actual hardware
before switching kernels?

I have still to verify that an UEFI bootloader will allow to implement
by scripting a "boot once", so that if a new kernel (on a remote host)
crashes, it reboots with a kernel that is known to work. It is probably
possible to implement this with the existence of persistent storage of
UEFI variables.
-- 
        Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ polynum +dot+ com>
                     http://www.kergis.com/
                    http://kertex.kergis.com/
                       http://www.sbfa.fr/
Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89  250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C