On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 05:15:57 +0200 (CEST), Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl
wrote:
This message contains a list of some regressions from 2.6.33,
for which there are no fixes in the mainline known to the tracking team.
If any of them have been fixed already, please let us know.
If you know of
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 07:15:38AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday 20 April 2010, Nick Bowler wrote:
On 05:15 Tue 20 Apr , Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
If you know of any other unresolved regressions from 2.6.33, please let us
know either and we'll add them to the list. Also,
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 07:15:38AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday 20 April 2010, Nick Bowler wrote:
Please list these two similar regressions from 2.6.33 in the r600 DRM:
* r600 CS checker rejects GL_DEPTH_TEST w/o depth buffer:
On 05:15 Tue 20 Apr , Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
If you know of any other unresolved regressions from 2.6.33, please let us
know either and we'll add them to the list. Also, please let us know
if any of the entries below are invalid.
Please list these two similar regressions from 2.6.33 in
On Wednesday 21 April 2010, Ben Gamari wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 05:15:57 +0200 (CEST), Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl
wrote:
This message contains a list of some regressions from 2.6.33,
for which there are no fixes in the mainline known to the tracking team.
If any of them have been
On Tuesday 20 April 2010, Nick Bowler wrote:
On 05:15 Tue 20 Apr , Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
If you know of any other unresolved regressions from 2.6.33, please let us
know either and we'll add them to the list. Also, please let us know
if any of the entries below are invalid.
Please
This message contains a list of some regressions from 2.6.33,
for which there are no fixes in the mainline known to the tracking team.
If any of them have been fixed already, please let us know.
If you know of any other unresolved regressions from 2.6.33, please let us
know either and we'll add
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 05:15:57 +0200 (CEST) Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl
wrote:
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15812
Subject : utsname.domainname not set in x86_32 processes
(causing YPBINDPROC_DOMAIN: domain not bound errors)
Submitter :
On Tuesday 20 April 2010, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 05:15:57 +0200 (CEST) Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl
wrote:
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15812
Subject : utsname.domainname not set in x86_32 processes
(causing YPBINDPROC_DOMAIN: