On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 11:20:09PM +0300, Max Dmitrichenko wrote:
I've rolled back to the lenny's X.org and applied both patches to the
kernel. It works!
The final patch which incorporates both patches against 2.6.26.6 (i.e.
sid's current kernel) is attached.
I'm typing this from working X
fixed 500358 2:1.5.3-1
Thanks
Hi Bastian
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 11:58:44PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
reassign 500358 xserver-xorg-core
thanks
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:07:06PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 22:10:03 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
I fail to see
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:28:44PM -0600, Jordan Bettis wrote:
Hi. I just wanted to weigh in and say that I've tried Max's fix on my
Ultra 5 and I can confirm that it works with the X server from lenny.
Before trying Max's kernel patch I also verified that X.org is
*broken* and unusable
reassign 500358 xserver-xorg-core
thanks
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:07:06PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 22:10:03 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
I fail to see the _kernel_ bug it fixes. I now know that this change
triggers a bug in the old (considered broken by
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 11:17:16PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
Please retest the official 2.6.26-11 images to verify if they work you:
Irrelevant question as this was no bug fix but a workaround.
Bastian
--
Emotions are alien to me. I'm a scientist.
-- Spock, This Side
Hi. I just wanted to weigh in and say that I've tried Max's fix on my
Ultra 5 and I can confirm that it works with the X server from lenny.
Before trying Max's kernel patch I also verified that X.org is
*broken* and unusable using the default kernel. This is true of the
X.org server included in
tags 500358 moreinfo
thanks
Please provide lspci -vvnn output of a working and a broken kernel. A
lspci -t maybe also usefull.
Bastian
--
What terrible way to die.
There are no good ways.
-- Sulu and Kirk, That Which Survives, stardate unknown
--
To
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 18:22:57 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
The first patch is fine. The revert is not.
Even if the revert is the only way to get X to work on those machines in
lenny?
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 08:20:01PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 18:22:57 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
The first patch is fine. The revert is not.
Even if the revert is the only way to get X to work on those machines in
lenny?
I fail to see the _kernel_ bug it fixes. I
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 10:30:38PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
SPARC is a traditionally brand
architecture. This case
affects Ultra 5 and may be several other workstation. So if something
doesn't function
on one box it doesn't function on a whole generation
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:46:24AM +0300, Max Dmitrichenko wrote:
It is the decision of the maintainer if nothing else matches.
Ok. Who is the maintainer?
debian-kernel, represented by whom doing the work.
Go on and read the discussion of this bug if you really interested why
these patches
2008/11/11, Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Go on and read the discussion of this bug if you really interested why
these patches differ.
You want something from us. Also the bugreport reads itself as two
different bugs, which does not make it easier to understand.
Bastian, what should I do?
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 22:10:03 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 08:20:01PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 18:22:57 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
The first patch is fine. The revert is not.
Even if the revert is the only way to get X to work on
/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=5769907ade8dda7002b304c03ef9e4ee5c1e0821
This is a different patch then
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=102;filename=sparc_fix_for_debian.patch;att=1;bug=500358
Go on and read the discussion of this bug if you really interested why
these patches
hi,
i have a no-name clone with a ATI Rage IIc and
it has the same problem (like everything that uses
mach64 on this architecture i guess).
i can verify the patch, can you please upload a
kernel .deb or the raw image somewhere? this one
is not a rocket, so building one is ...
thank you
-Florian
2008/11/9 Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
OK, since there was no opposition and there is still no explaination on
why this bug was donwgraded in the first place I'm upgrading it back to the
initial severity.
There is only a small fraction of machines affected, so this is not RC.
This is not
/bugreport.cgi?msg=102;filename=sparc_fix_for_debian.patch;att=1;bug=500358
Bastian
--
History tends to exaggerate.
-- Col. Green, The Savage Curtain, stardate 5906.4
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
severity 500358 grave
Thanks
On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 06:24:57PM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
As this affects a major part of all SPARC machines, I really think this is
release
critical and the bug severity should be upgraded again. If you don't disagree
strongly
I will upgrade it in the
severity 500358 important
thanks
On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 11:54:38PM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 06:24:57PM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
As this affects a major part of all SPARC machines, I really think this is
release
critical and the bug severity should be
Proposed patch. Explanations here [1].
[1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=122545873605649w=2
--
Max
diff -uprN linux-source-2.6.26/arch/sparc64/kernel/pci.c linux-source-2.6.26.pci-fixed/arch/sparc64/kernel/pci.c
--- linux-source-2.6.26/arch/sparc64/kernel/pci.c 2008-07-14
-For: Bug #500358
I've installed the xserver-xorg 1.5 and mach64 driver from experimental
and tested it with:
1) Current lenny's kernel
2) Gaudenz's patched kernel
3) etchnhalf kernel (2.6.24)
All the tests have the same negative result. Log attached.
So, I see current situation
2008/10/29, Gaudenz Steinlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Max
Thanks for testing. IMO the situation is now much more clear. I'm happy
that you confirmed that the patched kernel fixes the problem with the
X server in lenny.
Read carefully, Gaudenz. Patched kernel fixes only driver misbehaviour
Package: xserver-xorg-core
Version: 2:1.4.2-7
Followup-For: Bug #500358
Indeed, the Gaudenz's kernel helps to get rid of INVALID MEM ALLOCATION
messages in the log. But the final result is that last lines of log change
from:
(WW) MACH64: Mach64 in slot 1:2:0 could not be detected!
(II
Package: xserver-xorg-core
Version: 2:1.5.2-1
Followup-For: Bug #500358
I've installed the xserver-xorg 1.5 and mach64 driver from experimental
and tested it with:
1) Current lenny's kernel
2) Gaudenz's patched kernel
3) etchnhalf kernel (2.6.24)
All the tests have the same negative result
Hi
Joss assigned me these two bugs[1] (currently merged) for the bug sprint[2]. As
I lack proper SPARC hardware to investigate this myself, I need your help.
The two bugs are about X Server Crashes on SPARCs with PCI ATI Mach64 cards. The
most probable cause of the crash is an incompatible
Gaudenz Steinlin writes:
Hi
Joss assigned me these two bugs[1] (currently merged) for the bug sprint[2].
As
I lack proper SPARC hardware to investigate this myself, I need your help.
The two bugs are about X Server Crashes on SPARCs with PCI ATI Mach64 cards.
The
most
Hi Josip
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:20:21AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 09:36:39AM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
1. Install the kernel package from http://people.debian.org/~gaudenz/sparc
and test if this fixes the problem. This is the same kernel as currently
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 15:22:49 +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 02:53:46PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 14:48:42 +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
Oh, and we already have one in 488669, but it's filed against the core
X server package. I'll leave it to
Package: xserver-xorg-video-mach64
Version: 6.8.0-1
Severity: grave
Hi,
With an older kernel, the old version of this driver worked fine.
After a kernel upgrade, it stopped working, with a couple of error
messages screaming something about memory allocation.
Hearing something about how I have
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 01:16:35PM +0200, Ludovic Court?s wrote:
Jim Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ludovic Court?s wrote:
The current Xorg and ATI driver appear to not work when used with
`linux-image-2.6.25-2-sparc64' on an Ultra 5:
X.Org X Server 1.4.2
...
Any hint?
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 02:38:04PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 01:16:35PM +0200, Ludovic Court?s wrote:
Jim Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ludovic Court?s wrote:
The current Xorg and ATI driver appear to not work when used with
`linux-image-2.6.25-2-sparc64' on
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 14:48:42 +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
Oh, and we already have one in 488669, but it's filed against the core
X server package. I'll leave it to the X guys to decide where to merge.
In any case it's a clear regression from etch. :(
Feel free to provide a patch, or revert
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 02:53:46PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 14:48:42 +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
Oh, and we already have one in 488669, but it's filed against the core
X server package. I'll leave it to the X guys to decide where to merge.
In any case it's a clear
33 matches
Mail list logo
