Good catch guys; great teamwork! :-)
So I will leave things as per my previous diff, except I will disable
"PRETTY_2.6_OUTPUT".
I will re-build BusyBox now, test and then commit to CVS.
dMb
On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 15:11 +0100, Eric Spakman wrote:
> Hi Kp,
>
> That's it ;)
>
>
> Eric
>
> 20
Hi Kp,
That's it ;)
Eric
2010/11/15 KP Kirchdoerfer
> Am Montag, 15. November 2010, 14:09:29 schrieb Eric Spakman:
> > David,
> >
> > If I remember correctly, the option "Check tainted module" is needed. But
> I
> > can't remember which modules needed it. Please check before commiting
> that
Am Montag, 15. November 2010, 14:09:29 schrieb Eric Spakman:
> David,
>
> If I remember correctly, the option "Check tainted module" is needed. But I
> can't remember which modules needed it. Please check before commiting that
> change.
>
>
Hi Eric
I guess you mean this one:
"-enabled insmod
15.11.2010 14:25, e-mail dmb.leaf-devel пишет:
> On 14 November 2010 21:29, Andrew wrote:
>> 14.11.2010 23:15, davidMbrooke пишет:
>>> On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 20:50 +0200, Andrew wrote:
13.11.2010 12:24, davidMbrooke пишет:
> On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 11:11 +0200, Andrew wrote:
>> 12.11.201
David,
If I remember correctly, the option "Check tainted module" is needed. But I
can't remember which modules needed it. Please check before commiting that
change.
Eric
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> I won't promise that *nothing* is broken, but everything I tried works OK.
> I will commit when I get hom
On 14 November 2010 21:29, Andrew wrote:
> 14.11.2010 23:15, davidMbrooke пишет:
>> On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 20:50 +0200, Andrew wrote:
>>> 13.11.2010 12:24, davidMbrooke пишет:
On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 11:11 +0200, Andrew wrote:
> 12.11.2010 20:24, davidMbrooke пишет:
>> I see that we are
14.11.2010 23:15, davidMbrooke пишет:
> On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 20:50 +0200, Andrew wrote:
>> 13.11.2010 12:24, davidMbrooke пишет:
>>> On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 11:11 +0200, Andrew wrote:
12.11.2010 20:24, davidMbrooke пишет:
> I see that we are using "CONFIG_MODPROBE_SMALL" rather than
> "
On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 20:50 +0200, Andrew wrote:
> 13.11.2010 12:24, davidMbrooke пишет:
> > On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 11:11 +0200, Andrew wrote:
> >> 12.11.2010 20:24, davidMbrooke пишет:
> >>> I see that we are using "CONFIG_MODPROBE_SMALL" rather than
> >>> "CONFIG_MODPROBE" for BusyBox. Is there a
13.11.2010 12:24, davidMbrooke пишет:
> On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 11:11 +0200, Andrew wrote:
>> 12.11.2010 20:24, davidMbrooke пишет:
>>> I see that we are using "CONFIG_MODPROBE_SMALL" rather than
>>> "CONFIG_MODPROBE" for BusyBox. Is there a good reason for that? Would
>>> switching to CONFIG_MODPROB
On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 11:11 +0200, Andrew wrote:
> 12.11.2010 20:24, davidMbrooke пишет:
> >
> > I see that we are using "CONFIG_MODPROBE_SMALL" rather than
> > "CONFIG_MODPROBE" for BusyBox. Is there a good reason for that? Would
> > switching to CONFIG_MODPROBE be a practical option?
> >
> > > Fr
12.11.2010 20:24, davidMbrooke пишет:
>
> I see that we are using "CONFIG_MODPROBE_SMALL" rather than
> "CONFIG_MODPROBE" for BusyBox. Is there a good reason for that? Would
> switching to CONFIG_MODPROBE be a practical option?
>
> > From comparing the source code (modprobe.c versus modprobe-small.
On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 19:50 +0100, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 11. November 2010, 19:25:34 schrieb davidMbrooke:
> > On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 22:28 +0100, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote:
> > > Am Mittwoch, 10. November 2010, 22:14:53 schrieb davidMbrooke:
> > > > On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 19:49 +0200,
Am Donnerstag, 11. November 2010, 19:25:34 schrieb davidMbrooke:
> On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 22:28 +0100, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 10. November 2010, 22:14:53 schrieb davidMbrooke:
> > > On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 19:49 +0200, Andrew wrote:
> > > > Hi all.
> > > > I asked in other thread abou
On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 22:28 +0100, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 10. November 2010, 22:14:53 schrieb davidMbrooke:
> > On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 19:49 +0200, Andrew wrote:
> > > Hi all.
> > > I asked in other thread about this, but IMHO question is enough
> > > important to create separate topi
Am Mittwoch, 10. November 2010, 22:14:53 schrieb davidMbrooke:
> On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 19:49 +0200, Andrew wrote:
> > Hi all.
> > I asked in other thread about this, but IMHO question is enough
> > important to create separate topic.
> > We must decide before beta1, how we will maintain files with
On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 19:49 +0200, Andrew wrote:
> Hi all.
> I asked in other thread about this, but IMHO question is enough
> important to create separate topic.
> We must decide before beta1, how we will maintain files with module options.
>
> One way I described earlier - to rename /etc/module
Am Mittwoch, 10. November 2010, 18:49:36 schrieb Andrew:
> Hi all.
> I asked in other thread about this, but IMHO question is enough
> important to create separate topic.
> We must decide before beta1, how we will maintain files with module
> options.
>
> One way I described earlier - to rename /e
17 matches
Mail list logo
