Re: 2.6.34-rc5: Reported regressions from 2.6.33

2010-04-21 Thread Ben Gamari
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

Re: 2.6.34-rc5: Reported regressions from 2.6.33

2010-04-21 Thread Jerome Glisse
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,

Re: 2.6.34-rc5: Reported regressions from 2.6.33

2010-04-21 Thread Nick Bowler
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:

Re: 2.6.34-rc5: Reported regressions from 2.6.33

2010-04-20 Thread Nick Bowler
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

Re: 2.6.34-rc5: Reported regressions from 2.6.33

2010-04-20 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
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

Re: 2.6.34-rc5: Reported regressions from 2.6.33

2010-04-20 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
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

2.6.34-rc5: Reported regressions from 2.6.33

2010-04-19 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
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

Re: 2.6.34-rc5: Reported regressions from 2.6.33

2010-04-19 Thread Andrew Morton
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 :

Re: 2.6.34-rc5: Reported regressions from 2.6.33

2010-04-19 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
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: