> "JU" == Jonathan Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JU> So, I was wondering what would be useful information to help debug
JU> this, beyond "it doesn't work very well".
Well, the latest F8 kernels have a newer version of the iwlwifi
drivers; some folks have reported that it works much be
Hi,
I have a laptop with an ipw3945 wireless adapter and with F7
installed, things are quite flakey. Looking at forums and mailing
lists I see I'm not suffering alone. So, I was wondering what would be
useful information to help debug this, beyond "it doesn't work very
well".
TIA
Jonathan.
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 03:47:34PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Axel Thimm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> > > These patches:
> > >
> > > a) aren't upstream
> > > b) change the format of /proc/stat
> > > c) change process accounting in an incompatible way
> > >
> > > So... no.
> >
> > OK, fair e
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 01:24:05PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 05:50:50PM +0200, dragoran wrote:
>
> > this would mean that we will might end up having cfs as the scheduler
> > and tickless x86_64.
> > I mostly using x86_64 ... where there any major problems (exept the
Oops, I accidentally checked in my Makefile too. So I guess I'll just
assume you thought its changes were good. ;-)
This one copies some extras-style boilerplate that is necessary if you have
a whole-tree checkout of /cvs/pkgs/rpms. It does not give you individual
foobar/common/ checkouts like
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 12:59:26PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > Here I am again with those hacks to do alternate builds from the kernel
> > spec file. Can I commit at least the spec parts to rawhide now?
> >
> > The diff is only this:
> >
> > # This patch adds a "make nonint_oldco
> Just wondering about the usesparse macro. Any reason to conditionalize
> running sparse on it?
The only change in my diff is not to buildrequire sparse when not using it.
The reasons to conditionalize are unrelated to this change. (They are some
arch problems in sparse, and sparse not in repos
On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 16:03 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 12:59:26PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > Here I am again with those hacks to do alternate builds from the kernel
> > spec file. Can I commit at least the spec parts to rawhide now?
> >
> > The diff is only thi
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 12:59:26PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> Here I am again with those hacks to do alternate builds from the kernel
> spec file. Can I commit at least the spec parts to rawhide now?
>
> The diff is only this:
>
> # This patch adds a "make nonint_oldconfig" which is
Here I am again with those hacks to do alternate builds from the kernel
spec file. Can I commit at least the spec parts to rawhide now?
The diff is only this:
--- kernel-2.6.spec 08 Jun 2007 12:55:12 -0700 1.3213
+++ kernel-2.6.spec 08 Jun 2007 12:55:05 -0700
@@ -63,7 +63,8
Axel Thimm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> > These patches:
> >
> > a) aren't upstream
> > b) change the format of /proc/stat
> > c) change process accounting in an incompatible way
> >
> > So... no.
>
> OK, fair enough (I wasn't aware of b) and c)).
>
> Any other way then to achive the stated goa
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 03:43:32PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Axel Thimm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> > Would it make sense to add these patches to Fedora's kernel?
> >
> > http://www.atcomputing.nl/Tools/atop
> >
> > This could help in the area of extending laptop battery life by
> > detect
Axel Thimm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> Would it make sense to add these patches to Fedora's kernel?
>
> http://www.atcomputing.nl/Tools/atop
>
> This could help in the area of extending laptop battery life by
> detecting unneccessary disk access. The first step is to have some
> disk I/O to proc
Would it make sense to add these patches to Fedora's kernel?
http://www.atcomputing.nl/Tools/atop
This could help in the area of extending laptop battery life by
detecting unneccessary disk access. The first step is to have some
disk I/O to process mapping.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
pgpkbeL3
On 05/29/2007 02:06 PM, kathy pu wrote:
> Hello Everybody:
>
> Just wondering if FC6 supports KDB. If not, would like to know the
> current status andhow to get it and port it?
>
> My great appreciation.
>
I think Keith Owens keeps it updated:
ftp://oss.sgi.com/www/projects/kdb/download/v4.4
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 05:50:50PM +0200, dragoran wrote:
> this would mean that we will might end up having cfs as the scheduler
> and tickless x86_64.
> I mostly using x86_64 ... where there any major problems (exept the dell
> one) related to tickless kernels in the F7 cycle?
Too early
Dave Jones wrote:
On the subject of backporting, due to us only having 5 months
for F8, and a lot of that time being 'conference season', I expect
upstream to slow down a little, so we're probably looking at
2.6.23 for F8. I'm guessing .24 will begin way too late in our cycle,
so we'll have quit
17 matches
Mail list logo
