Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

On Wednesday March 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > A Linus based odd number > might be closer to that if we hope on people unwittingly running them. ^^^ I think this is a very unhelpful attitude

Re: [Fwd: United States Patent: 6,862,609]

On Wednesday 02 March 2005 21:36, Jeff V. Merkey wrote: >Another Linux patent. And that pretty much says it. Assigned to the Canopy Group. So SCO will have yet another lawsuit to threaten us with. If they survive the thrashing I've Been Moved will give them at the end of the day. Too bad

Re: [PATCH 2.6.11-rc4-mm1] connector: Add a fork connector

Hello, Guillaume (B (BI tried to measure the process-creation/destruction performance on (B2.6.11-rc4-mm1 plus (Bsome extensiton(Normal/with PAGG/with Fork-Connector). (BBut I received a following messages endlessly on system console with (BFork-Connector extensiton. (B (B# on IA-64 envir

Re: Page fault scalability patch V18: Drop first acquisition of ptl

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Andrew Morton wrote: > > This is a related change discussed during V16 with Nick. > > It's worth retaining a paragraph for the changelog. There have been extensive discussions on all aspects of this patch. This issue was discussed in http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11069449720

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Dave Jones wrote: On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 04:00:46PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > I would not keep regular driver updates from a 2.6. thing. Then the notion of it being stable is bogus, given how many regressions the last few kernels have brought in drivers. Moving from 2.6.9 -> 2.6.10 broke

Re: x25_create initializing socket data twice ...

Hi Herbert, On the same path sk_set_owner also gets called twice, I think this causes double module use count when creating sockets. Module use count need some attention all over x25. Im not sure if the fix is as straightforward, the calls are: sock_init_data(sock,sk) vs sock_init_data(NULL,sk)

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ditto for the 1394 fixes that have been upstream for at > least a month, maybe more. -mm always holds the latest 1394 tree. So you can run -mm, or just snarf bk-ieee1394.patch from the broken-out directory. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the

Re: [PATCH] ide: hdio.txt update

Hello, again. I've updated descriptions regarding SELECT register. Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Index: linux-taskfile-ng/Documentation/ioctl/hdio.txt === --- linux-taskfile-ng.orig/Documentation/ioctl/hdio.txt 200

Re: Bug report -- keyboard not working Linux 2.6.11 on Inspiron 1150

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:26:18 -0800 (PST), Joshua Hudson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No obvous reason. Works fine with kernel 2.6.10 > > Does it work with i8042.noacpi kernel boot parameter? > Yes, it does. I never heard of that option before, or a

Re: Bug report -- keyboard not working Linux 2.6.11 on Inspiron 1150

On Wednesday 02 March 2005 21:01, Joshua Hudson wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:26:18 -0800 (PST), Joshua Hudson > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > No obvous reason. Works fine with kernel 2.6.10 > > > > Does it work with i8042.noacpi kernel boo

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 12:59:20PM +1100, Neil Brown wrote: > I think there is a case for the "community" providing the most > "stable" kernel that it (reasonably) can without depending on > "distributions" to do that. The point is that it's happening anyway. See Andres' -as tree which is the bas

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Jeff Garzik wrote: I also note that part of the problem that motivates the even/odd thing is a tacit acknowledgement that people only _really_ test the official releases. Which IMHO backs up my opinion that we simply need more frequent releases. That doesn't really help in my opinion. We need t

[PATCH ide-dev-2.6] ide: ide_dma_intr oops fix

Hello, Bartlomiej. This patch fixes ide_dma_intr() oops which occurs for TASKFILE ioctl using DMA dataphses. This is against the latest ide-dev-2.6 tree + all your recent 9 patches. Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Index: linux-taskfile-ng/drivers/ide/ide-dma.c ==

[Fwd: United States Patent: 6,862,609]

Another Linux patent. --- Begin Message --- http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=merkey.INZZ.&OS=IN/merkey&RS=IN/merkey

radeonfb blanks my monitor

I just replaced my Matrox G400 with a Jetway Radeon 9600LE (256Mb). If I run 'modprobe radeonfb', the monitor blanks out and the power on light keeps flashing. What may be wrong ? Using 2.6.11. -- How to contact me - http://www.pervalidus.net/contact.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send th

Re: Bug report -- keyboard not working Linux 2.6.11 on Inspiron 1150

On Wednesday 02 March 2005 21:27, Joshua Hudson wrote: > i8042: ACPI detection disabled > i8042.c: Warning: Keylock active. I really need dmesg when booting _without_ the option, i.e. non-working case. Thanks! -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" i

Announce: kdb v4.4 is available for kernel 2.6.11

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 KDB (Linux Kernel Debugger) has been updated. ftp://oss.sgi.com/projects/kdb/download/v4.4/ ftp://ftp.ocs.com.au/pub/mirrors/oss.sgi.com/projects/kdb/download/v4.4/ Current versions are :- kdb-v4.4-2.6.11-common-1.bz2 kdb-v4.4-2.6.11-i386-1.bz2

Re: Page fault scalability patch V18: Drop first acquisition of ptl

Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > - if (!PageReserved(old_page)) > > > - page_cache_get(old_page); > > > > hm, this seems to be an unrelated change. You're saying that this page is > > protected from munmap() by munmap()'s do

[ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-3.0.2 for 2.6.11

A patch of PlugSched-3.0.2 (containing ingosched, staircase, spa_no_frills and zaphod CPU schedulers) against a 2.6.11 kernel is available for download from: PlugSched's version number has been bumped to 3.0.2 as

Re: Initialisation sequencing.

Ian Molton wrote: Hi. I have a problem. It affects both modular and non modular builds, and I dont see an obviously correct solution. The problem is that I have a video chip which supports some GPIOs and an LCD display. some LCD functions are controlled via the GPIOs, like backlighting. so the

Re: [PATCH] Fixing address space lock contention in 2.6.11

Peter Chubb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, > As part of the Gelato scalability focus group, we've been running > OSDL's Re-AIM7 benchmark with an I/O intensive load with varying > numbers of processors. The current kernel shows severe contention on > the tree_lock in the address space

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wednesday March 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Only davem, AFAIK. All the other trees get auto-sucked into -mm for > > testing. > > Ok, I got the feeling it was more wide spread than that, but I > apparently misread the signs (people mentioning

Re: Bug report -- keyboard not working Linux 2.6.11 on Inspiron 1150

Relevent messages (erring on the heavy side) ACPI: RSDP (v000 DELL ) @ 0x000fdf00 ACPI: RSDT (v001 DELLCPi R 0x27d4061d ASL 0x0061) @ 0x1fef ACPI: FADT (v001 DELLCPi R 0x27d4061d ASL 0x0061) @ 0x1fef0400 ACPI: DSDT (v001 INT430 SYSFexxx 0

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Neil Brown wrote: On Wednesday March 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Only davem, AFAIK. All the other trees get auto-sucked into -mm for testing. Ok, I got the feeling it was more wide spread than that, but I apparently misread the signs (people mentioning that had 'patches queued for Linus' and suc

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

I also note that part of the problem that motivates the even/odd thing is a tacit acknowledgement that people only _really_ test the official releases. Which IMHO backs up my opinion that we simply need more frequent releases. Part of this is a scalability problem. Linux probably has more chang

Re: [PATCH] Fixing address space lock contention in 2.6.11

Sorry, forgot the `signed-off-by'... Signed-off-by: Peter Chubb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Dr Peter Chubb http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au peterc AT gelato.unsw.edu.au The technical we do immediately, the political takes *forever* - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ke

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

The key thing I look at is total cycle time, from any particular point in the cycle, to when that same point comes around again. In 2.4 and before, the cycle time was a long time, I hear tell. Perhaps, at some points, things were sufficiently chaotic that it was difficult to discern any particula

Re: [BUG] - SATA / ioctl(). (HDIO_GET_IDENTITY failed...)

Damian Kolkowski wrote: Hi, Is there any patch to correct libata working with ioctl()? libata works fine with ioctl(2). For example: .~. # hdparm -t /dev/hda /dev/sda /dev/hda: Timing buffered disk reads: 174 MB in 3.03 seconds = 57.36 MB/sec /dev/sda: Timing buffered disk reads: 152 MB in

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Jeff V. Merkey wrote: __Stable__ would be a good thing. The entire 2.6 development has been a disaster from a stability viewpoint. I have to maintain a huge tree of patches in order to ship appliance builds due to the lack of stability for 2.6. I thi

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

* Dave Jones ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > So what was broken with the 2.6.8.1 type of 'hotfix kernel' release ? I agree, I think that's useful and needed. It's possible to get the fixes committed to an effective branch in bk and pull that back into mainline. So at each new release the last relea

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

David S. Miller wrote: On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:29:35 -0500 Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If the time between big merges increases, as with this proposal, then the distance between local dev trees and linux-2.6 increases. With that distance, breakages like the 64-bit resource struct stuff

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

On Wednesday 02 March 2005 20:15, Linus Torvalds wrote: >On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Greg KH wrote: >> I think this statement proves that the current development >> situation is working quite well. The nasty breakage and details >> got worked out in the -mm tree, and then flowed into your tree >> when the

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

On Wednesday 02 March 2005 19:58, David S. Miller wrote: >On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:29:35 -0500 > >Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >The problem is people don't test until 2.6.whatever-final goes out. >Nothing will change that. Except more people who think like me. I usually enjoy playing th

Re: Page fault scalability patch V18: Drop first acquisition of ptl

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Andrew Morton wrote: > > - if (!PageReserved(old_page)) > > - page_cache_get(old_page); > > hm, this seems to be an unrelated change. You're saying that this page is > protected from munmap() by munmap()'s down_write(mmap_sem), yes? What > stops memory reclaim fro

Re: [BUG] - SATA / ioctl(). (HDIO_GET_IDENTITY failed...)

* Damian Kołkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-03 03:07]: > Is there any patch to correct libata working with ioctl()? Probably hdparm is not the right software for this test, so sorry for bother ;-) -- ### Damian Kołkowski (dEiMoS) ## http://kolkowski.no-ip.org/ ### # echo teb.cv-ba.vxfjbxybx.

Re: Bug report -- keyboard not working Linux 2.6.11 on Inspiron 1150

> > > Does it work with i8042.noacpi kernel boot parameter? > > > > > Yes, it does. > Btw, when it boots _without_ this option is there any messages from > i8042 or ACPI? > A few. I'll go back and catch them for you. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in t

Re: [PATCH 2/2] readahead: improve sequential read detection

Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ~$ time dd conv=notrunc if=/tmp/GIG of=/tmp/dummy bs=$((4096+512)) > > 2.6.11-clean:real=370.35 user=0.16 sys=14.66 > 2.6.11-patched: real=234.49 user=0.19 sys=12.41 whoa, nice. Ram, can you put this through the torture-test sometime?

Re: [PATCH] sparc: fix compile failure ("struct resource" related)

On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 01:44:40PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Thanks. Many of these fixups are due to a 64-bit-resource patch in Greg's > bk-pci tree which he has now reverted. That being said: > - That patch will come back sometime > - Fixes like the below make sense anyway and can be merged

Re: [PATCH 1/2] readahead: simplify ra->size testing

Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On top of "readahead: cleanup blockable_page_cache_readahead()", > see http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=110927049500942 > > Currently page_cache_readahead() treats ra->size == 0 (first read) > and ra->size == -1 (ra_off was called) sepa

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

On Wednesday 02 March 2005 17:23, Nick Piggin wrote: > Then your above becomes: > 2.6.x-rc: bugfixes only > 2.6.x-pre: bugfixes and features > > And then that doesn't confuse end users either. > Speaking as an "ordinary" end user (there's nothing ordinary about me) I think the idea of even/odd re

[PATCH] Fixing address space lock contention in 2.6.11

Hi, As part of the Gelato scalability focus group, we've been running OSDL's Re-AIM7 benchmark with an I/O intensive load with varying numbers of processors. The current kernel shows severe contention on the tree_lock in the address space structure when running on tmpfs or ext2 on a RAM d

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

On Wednesday March 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > So what was broken with the 2.6.8.1 type of 'hotfix kernel' release ? > > That's an alternative, of course. > > But that _is_ a branch, and does need active forward- and (mainly) > backward-porting work

[BUG] - SATA / ioctl(). (HDIO_GET_IDENTITY failed...)

Hi, Is there any patch to correct libata working with ioctl()? For example: .~. # hdparm -t /dev/hda /dev/sda /dev/hda: Timing buffered disk reads: 174 MB in 3.03 seconds = 57.36 MB/sec /dev/sda: Timing buffered disk reads: 152 MB in 3.03 seconds = 50.11 MB/sec HDIO_DRIVE_CMD(null) (wait

Re: Page fault scalability patch V18: Drop first acquisition of ptl

Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ... > static int do_wp_page(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct * vma, > unsigned long address, pte_t *page_table, pmd_t *pmd, pte_t pte) > @@ -1306,22 +1308,25 @@ static int do_wp_page(struct mm_struct * > flush_

Re: Linux 2.6.11

Linus Torvalds wrote: > Ok, > there it is. Only small stuff lately - as promised. Shortlog from -rc5 > appended, nothing exciting there, mostly some fixes from various code > checkers (like fixed init sections, and some coverity tool finds). > > So it's now _officially_ all bug-free. At least

[PATCH 2.6.11-rc5-mm1] serial: update vr41xx_siu

This patch updates serial driver for VR41xx serial unit. Some check are added to verify_port. Yoichi Signed-off-by: Yoichi Yuasa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> diff -urN -X dontdiff a-orig/drivers/serial/vr41xx_siu.c a/drivers/serial/vr41xx_siu.c --- a-orig/drivers/serial/vr41xx_siu.c Wed Mar 2 01:04:39

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Jeff V. Merkey wrote: __Stable__ would be a good thing. The entire 2.6 development has been a disaster from a stability viewpoint. I have to maintain a huge tree of patches in order to ship appliance builds due to the lack of stability for 2.6. I think that the even number releases will take lon

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 05:20:49PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > So what was broken with the 2.6.8.1 type of 'hotfix kernel' release ? > > That's an alternative, of course. > > But that _is_ a branch, and does need active forward- and (mainly)

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > On 2005-03-02T14:21:38, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > We'd still do the -rcX candidates as we go along in either case, so as a > > user you wouldn't even _need_ to know, but the numbering would be a rough > > guide to intentions.

RE: RFD: Kernel release numbering

> I actually second Matt's request; -RCs à la 2.4. > > Then your above becomes: > 2.6.x-rc: bugfixes only > 2.6.x-pre: bugfixes and features > > And then that doesn't confuse end users either. I'll jump in and third this. It looks the "honest" way. I know Linus is always talking about "open sour

Re: Kernel release numbering

Massimo Cetra wrote: So, why moving from 2.6.14 to 2.6.15 when, in 2/4 weeks, i'll have a more stable 2.6.16 ? Will users help testing an odd release to have a good even release ? Or will they consider an even release as important as a -RC release ? I think it would be useful for folks to test the

RE: Kernel release numbering

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Massimo Cetra wrote: Linus Torvalds wrote: Namely that we could adopt the even/odd numbering scheme that we used to do on a minor number basis, and instead of dropping it entirely like we did, we could have just moved it to the release number, as an indication of what was the in

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, David S. Miller wrote: On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:29:35 -0500 Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If the time between big merges increases, as with this proposal, then the distance between local dev trees and linux-2.6 increases. With that distance, breakages like the 64-bit reso

Re: v2.4 megaraid2 update Re: [PATCH] Prevent NMI oopser

On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 11:26:06AM -0500, Bagalkote, Sreenivas wrote: > Hello Marcelo, Hi Sreenivas, Damn, now I apologize for taking so long to answer... > As per our offline conversation, I have verified the update that went into > 2.4.30-pre2. > I confirm that all changes are correct. I have

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Andrew Morton wrote: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: IMO too confusing. 2.6.even: bugfixes only 2.6.odd: bugfixes and features. That doesn't even confuse me! I actually second Matt's request; -RCs à la 2.4. Then your above becomes: 2.6.x-rc: bugfixes only 2.6.x-pre: bugfixes and features And

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

On Wednesday March 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Only davem, AFAIK. All the other trees get auto-sucked into -mm for > testing. Ok, I got the feeling it was more wide spread than that, but I apparently misread the signs (people mentioning that had 'patches queued for Linus' and such). >

Re: [PATCH/RFC] I/O-check interface for driver's error handling

On Wednesday, March 2, 2005 3:30 pm, Linas Vepstas wrote: > Put it another way: a device driver author should have the opportunity > to poll the pci bus status if they so desire. Polling for bus status > on ppc64 is real easy. Given what Jesse Barnes was saying, it sounded > like a simple (option

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

IMO too confusing. And it exacerbates an on-going issue: we are moving away from "release early, release often", as this proposal just pushes the list of pending stuff back even further. Developers right now are sitting on big piles, and pushing that back even further means every odd release m

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So what was broken with the 2.6.8.1 type of 'hotfix kernel' release ? That's an alternative, of course. But that _is_ a branch, and does need active forward- and (mainly) backward-porting work. There's nothing wrong with it per-se, but it becomes a "stab

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 04:58:30PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote: > The problem is people don't test until 2.6.whatever-final goes out. > Nothing will change that. > > And the day Linus releases we always get a pile of "missing MODULE_EXPORT()" > type bug reports that are one liner fixes. Th

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Greg KH wrote: > > I think this statement proves that the current development situation is > working quite well. The nasty breakage and details got worked out in > the -mm tree, and then flowed into your tree when they seemed sane. Actually, the breakage I was talking about

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Wed, 2 Mar 2005 16:58:30 -0800), "David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says: > All this "I have to hold onto my backlog longer, WAHHH!" arguments are bogus > IMHO. We're using a week of quiescence to fix the tree for users so they > are happy whilst we work on

RE: Kernel release numbering

Linus Torvalds wrote: > Namely that we could adopt the even/odd numbering scheme that > we used to do on a minor number basis, and instead of > dropping it entirely like we did, we could have just moved it > to the release number, as an indication of what was the > intent of the release. > Co

POLLWRNORM vs POLLOUT

I was attempting to merge the asm-*/poll.h files, which I noticed were virtually identical, into linux/poll.h when I noticed that several platforms, specifically frv, h8300, m68k, m68knommu, mips, sparc, sparc64, and v850, all define the POLLWRNORM constant to POLLOUT, while the rest define POLL

x25_create initializing socket data twice ...

Hi Folks! x25_create() [net/x25/af_x25.c] is calling sock_init_data() twice ... once indirectly via x25_alloc_socket() and a second time directly via sock_init_data(sock, sk); while this might not look as critical as it seems, it can easily break stuff which assumes that sock_init_data() isn't c

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But more recently I have discovered that quite a few key developers > develop against Linus' kernel and submit patches directly to him, > apparently bypassing Andrew. This leads to them holding back patches > when a release is approaching, rather than send

Scheduling while atomic errors on swsusp resume

Using the current Ubuntu development kernel (2.6.10 with acpi and swsusp stuff backported from 2.6.11), a user is getting the following trace on resume. Passing noapic nolapic removes the APIC error, but the rest of the trace is identical. This is reproducible, but only seems to happen on this mach

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 04:00:46PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > I would not keep regular driver updates from a 2.6. thing. Then the notion of it being stable is bogus, given how many regressions the last few kernels have brought in drivers. Moving from 2.6.9 -> 2.6.10 broke ALSA, USB, parpor

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:29:35 -0500 Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If the time between big merges increases, as with this proposal, then > the distance between local dev trees and linux-2.6 increases. > > With that distance, breakages like the 64-bit resource struct stuff > become more

Re: Linux 2.6.11

On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 05:06:36PM +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote: > Herbert Poetzl wrote: > [] > >BUG_ON() and friends are still broken (at least on x86) > [] > >Freeing unused kernel memory: 244k freed > >[ cut here ] > >kernel BUG at :9377! > > ~~~

Re: 2.6.11: touchpad unresponsive

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 12:12:53 -0500, Dmitry Torokhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Booting X in new kernel makes my touchpad very unresponsive. I can't > > click any longer in the touchpad area, and the touchpad doesn't response > > when moving in small increments, so the whole experience is quite

Re: Something is broken with SATA RAID ?

On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 12:39:41AM +, J.A. Magallon wrote: > Hi... > > I posted this in other mail, but now I can confirm this. > > I have a box with a SATA RAID-5, and with 2.6.11-rc3-mm2+libata-dev1 > works like a charm as a samba server, I dropped it 12Gb from an > osx client, and people d

Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] Custom power states for non-ACPI systems

Pavel Machek wrote: ... ...but adding new /sys/power/state might be okay. We should not have introduced "standby" in the first place [but I guess it is not worth removing now]. If something has more than 2 states (does user really want to enter different states in different usage?), I guess we can

Re: 2.6.11: iostat values broken, or IDE siimage driver ?

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick Lindsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Mike -- where did you get your iostat from? There's a couple of different >flavors out there and it may not make a difference but just in case ... Debian, sysstat+5.0.6-4 I know about the iostat problems - there were 32/6

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Linus Torvalds wrote: On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote: 30? Try 310 changesets, in my netdev-2.6 pending queue. Note that I don't think a 2.6. would have problems with things like driver updates. Nah, I agree with DaveJ -- there are definitely "dev" portions when it comes to driver updates

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

I'm only emailing to the list, feel free to keep my in CC (this way I'll know what part of the thread was directed towards me) Jeff V. Merkey wrote: > __Stable__ would be a good thing. The entire 2.6 development has been a > disaster from > a stability viewpoint. I have to maintain a huge tree of

Something is broken with SATA RAID ?

Hi... I posted this in other mail, but now I can confirm this. I have a box with a SATA RAID-5, and with 2.6.11-rc3-mm2+libata-dev1 works like a charm as a samba server, I dropped it 12Gb from an osx client, and people does backups from W2k boxes and everything was fine. With 2.6.11-rc4-mm1, it h

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 04:00:46PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > > 30? Try 310 changesets, in my netdev-2.6 pending queue. > > Note that I don't think a 2.6. would have problems with things like > driver updates. > > This was somewhat brought on

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 03:44:58PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > I think a better approach, and one which is already working out well in > > practice, is to put "more intrusive" features into -mm first, and only > > migrate them into 2.6.x when they have 'stabilized'. > > That wouldn't ch

Re: 2.6.11-rc4-mm1: something is wrong with swsusp powerdown

(Please do reply-to-all) Jindrich Makovicka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > In `subj` kernel, machine no longer powers down at the end of > > swsusp. 2.6.11-rc5-pavel works ok, as does 2.6.11-bk. > > For me, power down stopped working since the introduction of

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Andrew Morton wrote: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: IMO too confusing. 2.6.even: bugfixes only 2.6.odd: bugfixes and features. That doesn't even confuse me! Developers right now are sitting on big piles, and pushing that back even further means every odd release means you are creating a

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > IMO too confusing. > 2.6.even: bugfixes only 2.6.odd: bugfixes and features. That doesn't even confuse me! > Developers right now are sitting on big piles, and pushing that back > even further means every odd release means you are creating a > 2.4.x/2

2.6.11 (stable and -rc) ACPI breaks USB

Hi, I just installed 2.6.11 and I was hit by the same bug (or feature?) I found in -rcs. Basically my USB will work only if acpi=off was passed to the kernel. It looks like without acpi=off it will assign IRQ 10 and with acpi=off it will assign IRQ9. It worked at least with 2.6.9. I do not know

Re: [PATCH 2.6] Trivial indentation fix in i2c/chips/Kconfig

On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 07:45:22PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Greg, > > Quoting myself: > > > (...) I also think I see an indentation issue on the "tristate" line, > > seemingly copied from the SENSORS_DS1621 section which would need to > > be fixed as well. > > Here is the trivial patch fi

Re: [request for inclusion] Filesystem in Userspace

On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:31:23PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Do you have any objections to merging FUSE in mainline kernel? > > I was planning on sending FUSE into Linus in a week or two. That and > cpusets are the notable features which are 2

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

If I understand you correctly, what you are effectively saying is that people don't test the -rc releases enough, so you are going to start giving these releases a more formal name: 2.6.ODD. That will encourage more people to test them, so that when you do a real release (now called 2.6.EVEN inst

workflow (was Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering)

Other ideas ... I maintain my netdev-2.6 queue by creating a ton of "subject-specific" repositories locally, 8139cp/ bonding/ ieee80211/mips/ sis900/typhoon/ 8139too/e1000/ixgb/ misc/ skge/ viro-iomap/ 8139too-2/ ham/ janitor/ mv643xx/ sk_mca/

Re: [PATCH 2.6] Change of i2c co-maintainer

On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 07:51:06PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Greg, all, > > Since I am working more actively than Philip (or anyone else, for that > matter) on the i2c subsystem these days, it would probably make sense > that I am listed as the co-maintainer instead of him. > It's about ti

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Randy.Dunlap wrote: Jeff V. Merkey wrote: __Stable__ would be a good thing. The entire 2.6 development has been a disaster from a stability viewpoint. I have to maintain a huge tree of patches in order to ship appliance builds due to the lack of stability for 2.6. I think that the even number re

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > > If the users wouldn't even have to know, why do it? Who will benefit > from this, then? They don't _have_ to know. But both users and developers can take advantage of this to time their patches. > I think a better approach, and one which is al

Re: [PATCH/RFC] I/O-check interface for driver's error handling

On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 09:41:43AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt was heard to remark: > On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 12:22 -0600, Linas Vepstas wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 08:49:45AM -0800, Linus Torvalds was heard to > > remark: > > > > > > The new API is what _allows_ a driver to care. It does

Re: Kernel release numbering

Linus Torvalds: Namely that we could adopt the even/odd numbering scheme that we used to do on a minor number basis, and instead of dropping it entirely like we did, we could have just moved it to the release number, as an indication of what was the intent of the release. How about taking the idea

Re: BIOS overwritten during resume (was: Re: Asus L5D resume on battery power)

Hi! > > > It seems that we write to the BIOS while moving the image, at least on my > > > box, > > > which is quite not correct, IMO. > [-- snip --] > > > > > > IMO this may lead to unexpected results, like the mysterious reboots > > > during > > > resume. > > > > Well, I always thought that R

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Russell King wrote: This sounds good, until you realise that some of us have been sitting on about 30 patches for at least the last month, because we where following your guidelines about the -rc's. Things like adding support for new ARM machines and other devices, dynamic tick support for ARM, et

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 12:34:59AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 03:04:01PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > /me kills my patchbomb script for now > > > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:21:38PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > > - 2.6.: even at all levels, aim for having had m

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > 30? Try 310 changesets, in my netdev-2.6 pending queue. Note that I don't think a 2.6. would have problems with things like driver updates. This was somewhat brought on (at least for me, dunno about Davem) by things like 4-level page tables etc stu

Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:21:38PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > This is an idea that has been brewing for some time: Andrew has mentioned > it a couple of times, I've talked to some people about it, and today Davem > sent a suggestion along similar lines to me for 2.6.12. > > Namely that we c

[PATCH] ide: hdio.txt update

Hello, Bartlomiej. This patch updates Documentation/ioctl/hdio.txt. I'm gonna use this documentation as reference for future changes, so I tried to include all the specifics. Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Index: linux-taskfile-ng/Documentation/ioctl/hdio.txt ==

Re: Problems with SCSI tape rewind / verify on 2.4.29

Andrew/Kai, > List: linux-kernel > Subject:Re: Problems with SCSI tape rewind / verify on 2.4.29 > From: Andrew Morton > Date: 2005-03-02 22:17:11 > Message-ID: <20050302141711.00ec7147.akpm () osdl ! org> > [Download message RAW] > > Kai Makisara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Re: BIOS overwritten during resume (was: Re: Asus L5D resume on battery power)

Hi, On Wednesday, 2 of March 2005 23:05, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > [-- snip --] > > It seems that we write to the BIOS while moving the image, at least on my > > box, > > which is quite not correct, IMO. [-- snip --] > > > > IMO this may lead to unexpected results, like the mysterious reboot

<    1   2   3   4   5   >