http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10724
--- Comment #48 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-27 22:21 ---
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Justin Mattock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:42 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bu
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5372
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|CODE_FIX
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5358
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|REJECTED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5358
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|CODE_FIX
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5314
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|CODE_FIX
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10919
--- Comment #5 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-27 19:40 ---
And I just tried an unpatched 2.6.26-rc8 kernel and it still has the issue.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10919
--- Comment #4 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-27 19:28 ---
Created an attachment (id=16648)
--> (http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=16648&action=view)
dmesg from 2.6.26-rc8 with patch
I assume you mean the patch from comment
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10923
--- Comment #48 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-27 18:12 ---
The other configs were taken at the end of bisecting at the point where the
above mentioned patch was applied. I now uploaded the configs from 2.6.26-rc8
and the diff between S
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10923
--- Comment #47 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-27 18:10 ---
Created an attachment (id=16647)
--> (http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=16647&action=view)
diff between both configs
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10923
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #16619|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10923
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #16618|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10923
--- Comment #44 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-27 17:59 ---
No, the trampoline does not change anything. I will attach new .configs.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving t
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10923
--- Comment #43 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-27 17:54 ---
I generated the config with make menuconfig. Before it was changed a bit during
bisecting.
And yes, as said above, the same kernel with the same config compiled on the
same ma
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10724
--- Comment #47 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-27 15:15 ---
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:42 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10724
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
>
> What|Removed
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10982
--- Comment #8 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-27 15:05 ---
Latest news.
I reinstalled a 2.6.18 kernel (debian package) to test on it.
And after a while, same problem, lock of cpufreq_max
(ignore_ppc isn't set on boot command line, c
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10724
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10923
--- Comment #42 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-27 14:17 ---
Well, I'm not sure you're seeing the same problem at all.
Without CONFIG_X86_TRAMPOLINE=y the 64-bit UP resume won't work. It should
work with it, though.
Does the SMP kerne
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10923
--- Comment #41 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-27 13:00 ---
On Fri 2008-06-27 09:08:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10923
>
>
>
>
>
> --- Comment #40 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-27
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10982
--- Comment #7 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-27 11:57 ---
No problem today too. It seems to be PPC.
For CONFIG_ACPI_THERMAL, my current kernel option is set to "yes".
I try tomorrow with "no".
For the revision broken, no problem with
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10982
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status|N
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10982
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10923
--- Comment #40 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-27 09:08 ---
(In reply to comment #36)
> ...I can reproduce it, 64-bit system with UP configuration.
Can you attach the failing config, please?
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.ker
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7299
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
--- Comment #43 from [EMAIL PROTECTED
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7299
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO
--- Comment #42 from [E
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10923
--- Comment #39 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-27 08:41 ---
(In reply to comment #27)
> Created an attachment (id=16618)
--> (http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=16618&action=view) [details]
> .config which triggers the bug
H
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: kacpi_notify calls sleeping function from invalid context
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451399
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10923
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status|NEW
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10927
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10923
--- Comment #37 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-27 05:23 ---
So any 64-bit UP configuration is likely to be affected?
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10923
--- Comment #36 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-27 03:55 ---
...I can reproduce it, 64-bit system with UP configuration.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail beca
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10923
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|NEW
--- Comment #35 from [EMAIL
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10919
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from [E
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10483
--- Comment #19 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-27 02:28 ---
Created an attachment (id=16644)
--> (http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=16644&action=view)
Serialize SBSHC alarms
Please check if this patch helps.
--
Configure
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10483
--- Comment #18 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-27 01:23 ---
Oldrich,
I misunderstood your comment #14. I read it that you don't have problem with
-rc6...
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9915
--- Comment #48 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-27 00:25 ---
I have had this and other problems on the CF30 (mk2) and have just received a
bios update from panasonic. Its taken a month! It fixes my problem - couldnt
boot off a USB devic
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10119
--- Comment #24 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-27 00:24 ---
I have had this and other problems on the CF30 (mk2) and have just received a
bios update from panasonic. Its taken a month! It fixes my problem - couldnt
boot off a USB devi
36 matches
Mail list logo