Here's the diff of dmesgs between 2.6.10 and 2.6.11
2.6.10
i8042.c: Warning: Keylock active.
serio: i8042 AUX port at 0x60,0x64 irq 12
serio: i8042 KBD port at 0x60,0x64 irq 1
2.6.11
ACPI: PS/2 Keyboard Controller [KBC] at I/O 0x60, 0x66, irq 1
ACPI: PS/2 Mouse Controller [PS2M] at irq 12
Andrew Morton wrote:
Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The reason I put a shorter timeframe on the all-even kernel is because I
don't want developers to be too itchy and sitting on stuff for too long if
they did something slightly bigger.
If they're feeling itchy they should dig in and help
Hi Linus,
For a long time, I've been hoping/asking for a more frequent stable/unstable
cycle, so clearly you can count my vote on this one (eventhough it might
count for close to zero). This is a very good step towards a better stability
IMHO.
However, I have a comment :
- 2.6.odd: still a
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 11:58:46PM +0100, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
This could be improved: _All_ new features have to go through -mm first
for a period (of whatever length) / one cycle. 2.6.x only directly picks
up obvious bugfixes, and a select set of features which have ripened
in -mm.
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 14:21, 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 could adopt the
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 11:06:34PM +, Russell King wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:21:38PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
In other words, we'd have an increasing level of instability with an odd
release number, depending on how long-term the instability is.
- 2.6.even: even at
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 16:18 -0500, Jeffrey Mahoney wrote:
This patch converts the usage of struct of_match to struct of_device_id,
similar to pci_device_id. This allows a device table to be generated, which
can be parsed by depmod(8) to generate a map file for module loading.
In order for
Hi Greg,
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: even at all levels, aim for having had minimally intrusive
patches leading up to it (timeframe: a
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 09:46:12AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt was heard to
remark:
On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 14:02 -0600, Linas Vepstas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 09:27:27AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt was heard
to remark:
That's a style issue. Propose an API, I'll code it. We
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 think that the even
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 23:16:43 +, Marcus Furlong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's the diff of dmesgs between 2.6.10 and 2.6.11
2.6.10
i8042.c: Warning: Keylock active.
serio: i8042 AUX port at 0x60,0x64 irq 12
serio: i8042 KBD port at 0x60,0x64 irq 1
2.6.11
ACPI: PS/2 Keyboard
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 driver is split
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 16:18 -0500, Jeffrey Mahoney wrote:
This patch adds sysfs nodes that the hotplug userspace can use to load the
appropriate modules.
In order for hotplug to work with macio devices, patches to module-init-tools
and hotplug must be applied. Those patches are available at:
On Wednesday 02 Mar 2005 22:03, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 21:35:16 +, David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I've just booted 2.6.11 and the keyboard on my Dell Inspiron 5150 laptop
doesn't work at all. I've not tried the -rc versions, but it works fine
with
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 16:18 -0500, Jeffrey Mahoney wrote:
This patch adds the hotplug routine for generating hotplug events when
devices are seen on the macio bus. It uses the attributed created by the
sysfs nodes to generate the hotplug environment vars for userspace.
In order for hotplug
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 reboots during
Andrew/Kai,
List: linux-kernel
Subject:Re: Problems with SCSI tape rewind / verify on 2.4.29
From: Andrew Morton akpm () osdl ! org
Date: 2005-03-02 22:17:11
Message-ID: 20050302141711.00ec7147.akpm () osdl ! org
[Download message RAW]
Kai Makisara [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
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 could
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.even 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
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: even at all levels, aim for having had minimally
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 ROM-BIOS is expected to
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,
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
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 doesn't handle
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
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
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 time
Other ideas thinking out loud...
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/
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 2.6.12
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
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 fixing that, if
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
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/2.5.x
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
(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 softlockup
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 change. But
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.even would have problems with things like
driver updates.
This was somewhat brought on (at
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
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.even would have problems with things like
driver updates.
Nah, I agree with DaveJ -- there are definitely dev portions when it
comes to driver
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
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 32/64 bit
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
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 does
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 bad.
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 bad filename:9377!
~~~
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
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
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 04:00:46PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
I would not keep regular driver updates from a 2.6.even 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,
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 sending
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
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
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.
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 the
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
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. Those
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
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
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 (optional,
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).
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
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
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
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
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
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. Ie I'd
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 source keeps
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)
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
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 it
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
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 *
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)
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
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.
Oleg Nesterov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On top of readahead: cleanup blockable_page_cache_readahead(),
see http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernelm=110927049500942
Currently page_cache_readahead() treats ra-size == 0 (first read)
and ra-size == -1 (ra_off was called) separately, but
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 releases
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 any
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?
* Damian Kokowski [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 Kokowski (dEiMoS) ## http://kolkowski.no-ip.org/ ###
# echo
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
the body of a
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 the
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 they seemed
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
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
* 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 that had
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
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:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/cpuse/plugsched-3.0.2-for-2.6.11.patch?download
PlugSched's version number has been bumped to 3.0.2 as
-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
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
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 in
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
701 - 800 of 914 matches
Mail list logo
