On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 11:23:11PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> I wasn't quite sure what the status was, because there was some
> activity in the bug entry after it had been marked as resolved.
Yeah, the actual regression had been resolved (by changing the
default), but the root cause was
On Tuesday 17 November 2009, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 11:37:39PM +0100, 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
> > f
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 11:37:39PM +0100, 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 2.6.31. Please verify if it still should be listed and l
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 2.6.31. Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know
(either way).
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_
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 2.6.31. Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know
(either way).
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_
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 2.6.31. Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know
(either way).
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_
