On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 22:44 +0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
It is perhaps pretty simple to make the second (GFP_ATOMIC) allocation
go away. The code is already conveniently structured to do this:
do {
chunk = (struct fw_chunk *)(data + offset);
offset
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 05:11:29PM +0800, Zhu Yi wrote:
On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 22:44 +0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
It is perhaps pretty simple to make the second (GFP_ATOMIC) allocation
go away. The code is already conveniently structured to do this:
do {
chunk
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 05:06:47 am Andrew Morton wrote:
So in my tree I reworked it so that the new `force' arg gets passed
through appropriately. It compiles cleanly but I'd suggest that Len
simply drop misc:work_on_cpu-acpi and we send it back to Rusty for
some rechecking (sorry).
Sure. My
Hi Rusty,
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:23:20 +0930 Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au wrote:
Rusty/Len: please work out why the title for that patch went silly.
git-quiltimport uses the patch names, and doesn't extract the title. I
assume that's what Stephen uses. I didn't rename the patch
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday 26 August 2009, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.30. Please
On Thursday 27 August 2009, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday 26 August 2009, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 21:45:01 +0200 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday 27 August 2009, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday 26 August 2009, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
This message has been generated automatically as a
Randy Dunlap wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 21:45:01 +0200 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday 27 August 2009, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday 26 August 2009, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
This
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:23:20 +0930
Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au wrote:
My linux-next repair job:
OK, I've dropped these from my tree entirely to avoid more problems.
Can you take them? They're not really at home in my tree.
Hi Andrew, Rusty,
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:36:53 -0700 Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:23:20 +0930 Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au
wrote:
Can you take them? They're not really at home in my tree.
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 08:43:51 pm Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi Rusty,
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:23:20 +0930 Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au
wrote:
Rusty/Len: please work out why the title for that patch went silly.
git-quiltimport uses the patch names, and doesn't extract the title.
Hi Rusty,
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:32:18 +0930 Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 08:43:51 pm Stephen Rothwell wrote:
git quiltimport assumes mail-like patches, so it looks for From: and
Subject: lines. I guess it could be made to use the first line of the
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz reported an atomic order-6 allocation failure
for ipw2200 firmware loading in kernel 2.6.30. High order allocation is
likely to fail and should always be avoided.
The patch fixes this problem by replacing the original order-6
pci_alloc_consistent() with an array of
13 matches
Mail list logo
