On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Kelledin Tane wrote:
> At this point, I'm trying to get an initrd working properly. So far, it
> works, the system boots, etc. etc., but whenever I try to do a "blockdev
> --flushbufs /dev/ram0", I get "device or resource busy"
>
> When I mount the filesystem to check it ou
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 11:42:49AM +0100, Jan Rekorajski wrote:
>
> Could you please make a patch with this fix only? Or is it
> available somewhere?
>
[cut incomplete patch ;)]
There are more changes, I hacked'em ou
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
>
> Usual spot:
>
> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/davem/zerocopy-2.4.2-2.diff.gz
>
> Changes since last installment:
>
> 3) Workaround for win2000/95 VJ header compression bugs is
>implemented.
Could you please make a patch with
Hi,
2.4.0 introduced serious breakage to LANE. It's impossible to do
ifdown lec? ; ifup lec? because memory allocated by lec? is freed but
unregister_netdev() is not called, so SIOCGIFFLAGS tells me ok, but
SIOCSIFFLAGS tells me -ENODEV. No, rmmod lec ; insmod lec does not help.
Patch follows
--
...is still broken. It does not build Fore 200e driver.
Jan
--- linux/drivers/atm/Makefile.orig Tue Jan 2 10:18:25 2001
+++ linux/drivers/atm/Makefile Tue Jan 2 12:00:05 2001
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@
endif
endif
-obj-$(CONFIG_ATM_FORE200E) += fore200e.o $(FORE200E_FW_OBJS)
+obj-$(CONFIG_AT
Hi,
The Fore dirver in 2.4.0-prerelease just does not build
with the current makefile. This patch fixes it (works for me):
--- linux/drivers/atm/Makefile.orig Tue Jan 2 10:18:25 2001
+++ linux/drivers/atm/Makefile Tue Jan 2 12:00:05 2001
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@
endif
endif
-obj-$(CONFIG_AT
Hi,
Due to latest Makefile changes ATM LANE won't build as module.
The following patch fixes it.
--- linux/net/atm/Makefile.orig Sun Dec 31 17:57:15 2000
+++ linux/net/atm/Makefile Sun Dec 31 19:04:49 2000
@@ -33,7 +33,13 @@
obj-y += proc.o
endif
-obj-$(CONFIG_ATM_LANE) += lec.o lane_mpo
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, Maciej Bogucki wrote:
> HI!
> I have 2.4.0-test9 and 2.2.16 kernel compiled on my computer .I have
> httpd server on this computer . With 2.2.16 apache work good ( via DSL
> and modem ), but with 2.4 ( the same computer ) , when I wont to connect
> to my page via modem first
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Jan Rekorajski wrote:
> > > > --- linux/kernel/fork.c~Tue Sep 5 23:48:59 2000
> > > > +++ linux/kernel/fork.c Sun Nov 26 20:22:20 2000
> > > >
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Why is RLIMIT_NPROC apllied to root(uid 0) processes? It's not kernel j=
> > ob to
> > prevent admin from shooting him/her self in the foot.
> >
> > root should be able to do fork() regardless of any limits,
> > and IMHO the following patch is the right t
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Jan Rekorajski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> |> Why is RLIMIT_NPROC apllied to root(uid 0) processes? It's not kernel job to
> |> prevent admin from shooting him/her self in the foot.
> |>
> |> root shou
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Jan Rekorajski wrote:
> > --- linux/kernel/fork.c~Tue Sep 5 23:48:59 2000
> > +++ linux/kernel/fork.c Sun Nov 26 20:22:20 2000
> > @@ -560,7 +560,8 @@
> > *p = *current;
> >
>
Why is RLIMIT_NPROC apllied to root(uid 0) processes? It's not kernel job to
prevent admin from shooting him/her self in the foot.
root should be able to do fork() regardless of any limits,
and IMHO the following patch is the right thing.
--- linux/kernel/fork.c~Tue Sep 5 23:48:59 200
On Wed, 22 Nov 2000, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
>
> Is probably broken (I didnt't saw any disscusion about this here,
> I missed it?).
>
> when I try to start first user process I get:
> 4366 fork()= -1 EAGAIN (Resource temporarily
>unavailable)
> but strace show
14 matches
Mail list logo
