On Thursday 28 December 2006 21:23, Frans Pop wrote:
> Als de oplossing wordt om machines uit te sluiten, lijkt me dit wel een
> candidaat voor documentatie in de Release Notes. Een voorgestelde tekst
> daarvoor zou zeer welkom zijn (BR tegen release-notes).
Sorry, this mail was intended as a priv
Hoi Bas,
On Thursday 28 December 2006 20:15, you wrote:
> You wrote:
> > forgot to ask you to for the ouput of dmidecode and acpidump.
> > for the acpi blacklisting.
>
> Attached.
Als de oplossing wordt om machines uit te sluiten, lijkt me dit wel een
candidaat voor documentatie in de Release No
A couple of observations:
* This bug will not cause hardware damage. The hard thermal cutoff
temperature is well below the temperature at which actual damage will
occur.
* It's not clear that the vendor DSDT is broken. It's an unusual
interpretation of the spec, but not necessarily an invalid
hello,
On Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 09:46:04PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
>
> At Jurij's request, I've tried out his patch. It seems to work
> perfectly here (HP nc6120) , and fixes the "no fans after suspend"
> problem of #400488.
forgot to ask you to for the ouput of dmidecode and acpidump.
for t
hello,
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > I'm more than willing to help test a kernel package, but I'll be on
> > [VAC] from 2006-12-23 to 2007-01-03 inclusive. So, please do not
> > release Etch just now :)
>
> I have ordered an nx6325, which sho
On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 06:52:06PM -0800, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 03:40:58AM +0100, maximilian attems wrote:
> > > I have reviewed the information available on the thermal problems with
> > > HP laptops, and it appears that there is a fairly conservative set of
> > > patche
Hi!
At Jurij's request, I've tried out his patch. It seems to work
perfectly here (HP nc6120) , and fixes the "no fans after suspend"
problem of #400488.
--
Kind regards,
++
| Bas Zoetekouw | GPG key: 0644fab7
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 04:22:45AM +0100, maximilian attems wrote:
> > why was that fact never rc for sarge?
> > #259481, #262383
>
> Discussing why it was not RC for Sarge seems pretty irrelevant to me.
> It's up to release managers what is RC, and Et
On Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 04:22:45AM +0100, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 06:52:06PM -0800, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> >
> > > backports are risky, again as you see for the net-r8169-1.patch,
> > > that is a "localized" driver enhancement with big slow down consequences
> > > #40052
On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 06:52:06PM -0800, Jurij Smakov wrote:
>
> > backports are risky, again as you see for the net-r8169-1.patch,
> > that is a "localized" driver enhancement with big slow down consequences
> > #400524 and #403782. yes upstream has a fix for that and it should
> > land soon, b
On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 06:09:02PM -0800, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> So far I have not tried building the kernel with this patches, but I think
> this is
> a reasonable way to resolve the problem, as the resulting cumulative patch
> (attached)
> is only 19K.
Sorry, I made this patch reversed by mist
On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 06:09:02PM -0800, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 03:07:55AM +0100, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> >
> > Hi *,
> >
> > this is indeed a severe issue which requires all our attention and care
> > to solve or circumvent in order for nobodies boxes to get any harm,
On Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 03:40:58AM +0100, maximilian attems wrote:
> > I have reviewed the information available on the thermal problems with
> > HP laptops, and it appears that there is a fairly conservative set of
> > patches which takes care of the problems (thanks to Bas for pointing
> > mo
On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 03:07:55AM +0100, Frederik Schueler wrote:
>
> Hi *,
>
> this is indeed a severe issue which requires all our attention and care
> to solve or circumvent in order for nobodies boxes to get any harm, you
> know how expensive these laptops are.
>
> I basically see 3 solutio
On Sunday 24 December 2006 15:22, you wrote:
> This is exactly the same kind of
> argument you are using in d-i, don't you think ?
There is a difference between being conservative with fixes for minor
issues and fixes for issues that can fry peoples hardware, don't you
think?
Of course care is
On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 03:42:46PM +0100, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 03:31:15PM +0100, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 02:02:58PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > > Do you intent to disable ACPI entirely for all systems?
> > >
> > >
* Moritz Muehlenhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-12-24 15:57]:
> Since HP supports Debian officially now
not on laptops.
> I'm sure Dann or someone else from HP can provide us a list of
> affected models.
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 03:31:15PM +0100, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 02:02:58PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > Do you intent to disable ACPI entirely for all systems?
> >
> > It appears to me that the affected HP models could be disabled on a per-case
> >
On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 02:48:27PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Sunday 24 December 2006 03:07, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> > 2. port 2.6.19 ACPI - noop because way too much work, unless someone
> > "crazy enough" to accomplish this task.
>
> Did you see that Bas Zoetekouw managed [1, #400488] to so
Frederik Schueler wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 02:02:58PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > Do you intent to disable ACPI entirely for all systems?
> >
> > It appears to me that the affected HP models could be disabled on a per-case
> > basis using drivers/acpi/blacklist.c
>
>
Hello,
On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 02:02:58PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Do you intent to disable ACPI entirely for all systems?
>
> It appears to me that the affected HP models could be disabled on a per-case
> basis using drivers/acpi/blacklist.c
This looks like a good idea to me, do we kn
On Sunday 24 December 2006 03:07, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> 2. port 2.6.19 ACPI - noop because way too much work, unless someone
> "crazy enough" to accomplish this task.
Did you see that Bas Zoetekouw managed [1, #400488] to solve the problem
for his box by applying some selected patches from u
On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 03:07:55AM +0100, Frederik Schueler wrote:
>
> Hi *,
>
> this is indeed a severe issue which requires all our attention and care
> to solve or circumvent in order for nobodies boxes to get any harm, you
> know how expensive these laptops are.
>
> I basically see 3 solutio
On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 03:07:55AM +0100, Frederik Schueler wrote:
>
> Hi *,
>
> this is indeed a severe issue which requires all our attention and care
> to solve or circumvent in order for nobodies boxes to get any harm, you
> know how expensive these laptops are.
>
> I basically see 3 solutio
Hi *,
this is indeed a severe issue which requires all our attention and care
to solve or circumvent in order for nobodies boxes to get any harm, you
know how expensive these laptops are.
I basically see 3 solutions/workarounds:
1. the brutal one: deactivate ACPI in 2.6.18, have the bios keep c
On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 11:50:40AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061222 05:42]:
> > On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 12:53:09PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> > > maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 11:28:29AM +0100, Marc '
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061222 05:42]:
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 12:53:09PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> > maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 11:28:29AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> > >> Fix it or document it, I don't care. But
Some more information.
1) On my machine, reading the temperature using, say, yacpi, causes
one processor to process all the pending ACPI events. On a
uniprocessor machine, the machine would appear to hang for several
seconds; not so on my dual-core machine :)
2) The lare slab usage (1.1
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 12:53:09PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 11:28:29AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Fix it or document it, I don't care. But the current st
On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 12:53:09PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> severity 404143 critical
> thanks
>
> maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 11:28:29AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> >> Fix it or document it, I don't care. But the current state
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061222 11:34]:
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 10:54:50AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > severity 404143 critical
> > thanks
> >
> > * Bastian Blank ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061222 01:27]:
> > > On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 01:51:36AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > Co
forward 400488 http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7122
forward 404143 http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5534
thanks
When I said there's a memory leak, that's not technically true. What
happens is that ACPI events get piled up in a queue and never
processed, due to a deadlock in L
Sven Luther writes:
> Euh, it seems to me more that the hardware has a bug which causes
> normal operation to damage it.
>
> As thus, i think that any damage done would be under the
> responsability of the manufacturer to repare or fix. This seems to
> be both the position of Bastian and Maximilian
On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 12:09:45PM +0100, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 11:28:29AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> > Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 10:30:57AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> > >> Sorry, I don't accept this.
severity 404143 critical
thanks
maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 11:28:29AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> Fix it or document it, I don't care. But the current state is not
>> releasable.
> we are not talking about "a" patch.
> what you need is an ba
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 404143 critical
Bug#404143: Fans unreliable under load, permanent memory leak
Severity set to `critical' from `important'
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking syst
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 404143 important
Bug#404143: Fans unreliable under load, permanent memory leak
Severity set to `important' from `critical'
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking syst
severity 404143 important
thanks
On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 10:54:50AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> severity 404143 critical
> thanks
>
>
> This bug however has the potential to damage hardware. Which is a
> critical bug.
yes, but it is a very specific affected hardware range.
upstream did not is
On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 11:28:29AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 10:30:57AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> >> Sorry, I don't accept this. We are talking about an *overheating*
> >> problem, which means *broken* h
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 10:30:57AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> Sorry, I don't accept this. We are talking about an *overheating*
>> problem, which means *broken* hardware. There needs to be at least a fix
>> documented in the release-notes.
>
On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 10:54:50AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> severity 404143 critical
> thanks
>
> * Bastian Blank ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061222 01:27]:
> > On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 01:51:36AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Consequence: linux-image-2.6.18-3-amd63 (=2.6.18-7) is unsuitable
On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 10:30:57AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Sorry, I don't accept this. We are talking about an *overheating*
> problem, which means *broken* hardware. There needs to be at least a fix
> documented in the release-notes.
Garbage-in, garbage-out. The BIOS of that machin
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 404143 critical
Bug#404143: Fans unreliable under load, permanent memory leak
Severity set to `critical' from `serious'
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking syst
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I'm more than willing to help test a kernel package, but I'll be on
> [VAC] from 2006-12-23 to 2007-01-03 inclusive. So, please do not
> release Etch just now :)
I have ordered an nx6325, which should arrive directly after
Christmas. I would also be happy to test a fix
severity 404143 critical
thanks
* Bastian Blank ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061222 01:27]:
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 01:51:36AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Consequence: linux-image-2.6.18-3-amd63 (=2.6.18-7) is unsuitable for
> > release.
>
> Failing for you don't makes it unsuitable.
That is a
severity 404143 serious
thanks
maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> severity 404143 important
> tags 404143 upstream
> stop
[...]
> big nack,
> acpi has a huge potential destabilisation.
> at this time of the game adding acpi patches is pron to regression
> at unexpected corners.
>
> et
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 404143 serious
Bug#404143: Fans unreliable under load, permanent memory leak
Severity set to `serious' from `important'
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking syst
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 404143 important
Bug#404143: Fans unreliable under load, permanent memory leak
Severity set to `important' from `important'
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug
severity 404143 important
tags 404143 upstream
stop
On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 01:51:36AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Package: linux-image-2.6.18-3-amd64
> Version: 2.6.18-7
> Severity: grave
> Justification: hardware overheating hazard; requires periodic reboots
>
> (This is not the same bug
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 404143 important
Bug#404143: Fans unreliable under load, permanent memory leak
Severity set to `important' from `grave'
> tags 404143 upstream
Bug#404143: Fans unreliable under load, permanent memory leak
There were no tags
Package: linux-image-2.6.18-3-amd64
Version: 2.6.18-7
Severity: grave
Justification: hardware overheating hazard; requires periodic reboots
(This is not the same bug as #400488 (upstream #7122))
This bug affects several amd64 notebooks from HP, notably the nx6125
and the nx6325; there may be othe
51 matches
Mail list logo
