On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 17:21 +, planetf1 wrote:
> I have a 2.6.31 kernel from F12.
>
> I believe I've built it with CONFIG_PREEMPT but given the intracacies of
> the rpm build, what's the easiest way to check an installed kernel to
> see if that flag had been used during build?
grep CONFIG_P
On Sat, 2009-01-24 at 19:46 +0200, Gilboa Davara wrote:
> Hello all,
>
...
P.S. Too much work, way-too-much coffee, no enough sleep == lousy
English. Sorry for that.
- Gilboa
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
Hello all,
I'm almost certain that is the not the right place to ask this question,
but if RedHat/Fedora's kernel engineers can't help me, I'm truly
screwed.
I'm are using two Intel 10GbE (ixgbe) cards to passively monitor 10GbE
lines (Under RHEL 5.2) either using the in-kernel dev_add_pack inter
On Sun, 2007-11-18 at 06:33 -0500, Sam Folk-Williams wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have updated http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/CustomKernel for F8.
> Would appreciate a technical review.
>
> The section on building only modules has not been updated - if anyone
> has any comments on that, much apprecia
On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 10:00 -0500, Bill Rugolsky Jr. wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 09:52:49AM -0500, Bill Rugolsky Jr. wrote:
> > With CPU hotplug, you don't even have to reboot.
>
> One additional note: Since the Opteron boxes are NUMA, the memory topology
> (and any differences from the onli
On Sat, 2007-09-15 at 17:45 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Gilboa Davara wrote:
>
> >> I was looking at this from a slightly different angle, which is that the
> >> stack overflow warning is largely pointless - no matter how much you
> >> lighten up the dump_stack p
On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 22:07 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Gilboa Davara wrote:
>
> > Sorry for butting in... but isn't disabling STACKOVERFLOW the wrong
> > answer to this problem?
> > Does anyone see any reason why both sprint_symbol and __print_symbol
> >
On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 18:42 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 01:34:24AM +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote:
>
> > > In light of this, I'd like to propose that we turn off
> > > DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW in Fedora, at least on x86/4KSTACKS. I think it
> &
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 15:05 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> I sent this same message to LKML a while ago, but thought I'd get it a
> more targeted audience:
>
> =
> Noticed today that the combination of 4KSTACKS and DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW
> config options is a bit deadly.
>
> DE
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 14:57 +0100, Chris Brown wrote:
> On 09/08/07, Gilboa Davara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 13:22 -0500, Guy Streeter wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 14:17 -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > > > The pcspkr driver does
On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 13:22 -0500, Guy Streeter wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 14:17 -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > The pcspkr driver doesn't load automatically any more with kernel
> > 2.6.22.
> >
> > Should we build it in, or maybe add it to the list of drivers that
> > always get loaded?
>
> P
On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 16:41 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Chuck Ebbert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> > Why do we explicitly remove atomic.h from our kernel header package?
>
> IIRC, the reasoning was because the operations weren't actually
> atomic when used from userspace; ergo, it was a bad ide
12 matches
Mail list logo
