Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 03:27:42AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
Sure they've been asking for it, but I think they really don't know what
it entails. Look at all of the "non-stable" type patches in the -ac and
as tree. There's a lot of stuff in there. It's a slippery sl
Andrew Morton writes:
> 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 candidates.
>
> - crashdum
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 07:37:44PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
[snip]
> > 2.6.x-pre: bugfixes and features
> > 2.6.x-rc: bugfixes only
>
> And the reason it does _not_ work is that all the people we want testing
> sure as _hell_ won't be testing -rc versi
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 01:13:38AM -0800, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> on den 02.03.2005 Klokka 09:18 (+0100) skreiv Andi Kleen:
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:46:23AM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > > Bernd Schubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > Hmm, after compiling with -D_FILE_OFFSET_B
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The reasons -rcs are not as good as they could be is that they include
> more than just bug fixes.
I thought we'd been fairly good about that, actually. The -rc1's always
come too early for me (I usually wait for all the bk merges to happen).
But once
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 12:53:53AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> And sometimes, people really want those "big" fixes, and they switch to
> using the bk-usb patchset, or the bk-scsi patchset. That happens a lot
> for when distros work to stabilize their release kernels.
For those that have no intent
from what I have been able to find under /Documentation /proc/loadavg is
defined as giving three loadaverage numbers, 1 min, 5 min, 15 min.
however as of 2.6.5ish timeframe there are a coupld of additional colums
that do not appear to be documented
the first is something #/# that could be # of
Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> So... the big "how it all works" comment needs an update..
Same patch, comment updated.
Currently page_cache_readahead() treats ra->size == 0 (first read)
and ra->size == -1 (ra_off was called) separately, but does exactly
the same in both cases.
With this patch we may
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 03:38:22AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> The pertinent question for a point release (2.6.X.Y) would simply be
> "does a 2.6.11 user really need this fix?"
"need this fix bad enough now, or can it wait until 2.6.12?"
> >Like I previously said, I think we're doing a great job
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 03:27:42AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> >Sure they've been asking for it, but I think they really don't know what
> >it entails. Look at all of the "non-stable" type patches in the -ac and
> >as tree. There's a lot of stuff in there. It's a slippery slope
--- Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 03:28:22AM -0500, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>
> Greg> So, while I like the _idea_ of the 2.6.x.y type releases, having
> Greg> those releases contain anything but a handful of patches will
> Greg> quickly get quite messy.
>
> Wouldn't this actually happen automatically simply by
Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 05:15:36PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
The thing is, I _do_ believe the current setup is working reasonably well.
But I also do know that some people (a fairly small group, but anyway)
seem to want an extra level of stability - although those people seem
This corrected the problem on 2.4.29. Thanks Marcelo and all for your
help.
Mark
-Original Message-
From: Marcelo Tosatti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 02 March 2005 12:04
To: Mark Yeatman
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Problems with SCSI tape rewind
> "Greg" == Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Greg> On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 02:52:21AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Users have been clamoring for a stable release branch in any case,
>> as you see from comments about Alan's -ac and an LKML user's -as
>> kernels.
Greg> Sure they've been aski
Greg KH wrote:
Sure they've been asking for it, but I think they really don't know what
it entails. Look at all of the "non-stable" type patches in the -ac and
as tree. There's a lot of stuff in there. It's a slippery slope down
when trying to say, "I'm only going to accept bug fixes."
We have
On Thu, Mar 03 2005, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 09:05:19 +0100, Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 03 2005, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > > On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 15:57:18 +0900, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Hello, Jens.
> > > >
>
> "David" == David Mosberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
David> At the risk of asking the obvious: what's preventing genalloc
David> to be implemented in terms of mempool?
David,
Taking another look at mempool, there's several reasons why mempool
isn't well suited for this job.
Basically fo
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 05:15:36PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> The thing is, I _do_ believe the current setup is working reasonably well.
> But I also do know that some people (a fairly small group, but anyway)
> seem to want an extra level of stability - although those people seem to
> not
Hello
On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 21:32, Alexander Gran wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Whatever happens here, we need - at least - lower
> the amount of log generatet. This is not really handy...
> lsusb still lists the disk
> syslog can be found (as soon as syslogd finished...;) at
> http://zodiac.dnsalias.org/mis
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 09:05:19 +0100, Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03 2005, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 15:57:18 +0900, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hello, Jens.
> > >
> > > Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 03 2005, Tejun Heo wro
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 08:50:08PM +0100, Miguelanxo Otero Salgueiro wrote:
>- Setting randomly "last battery full charge" to a huge value
> (example: 400 Ah when max battery capacity is 38 Ah) so I get random
> charging/discharging timing patterns
Happens to me sometime (and misdetection o
On Thu, Mar 03 2005, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 15:57:18 +0900, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hello, Jens.
> >
> > Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 03 2005, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hello, Bartlomiej.
> > >>
> > >> This patch fixes ide_dma_intr() oo
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 02:52:21AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 2.6.x.y has a very real engineering benefit: it becomes a stable
> release branch. That will encourage even more users to test it, over
> and above a simple release naming change.
>
> Users have been clamoring for a stable release
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 15:57:18 +0900, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello, Jens.
>
> Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 03 2005, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >
> >> Hello, Bartlomiej.
> >>
> >> This patch fixes ide_dma_intr() oops which occurs for TASKFILE ioctl
> >>using DMA dataphses. This is aga
Hi,
On Thursday, 3 of March 2005 00:54, Pavel Machek wrote:
> 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 mysterio
501 - 526 of 526 matches
Mail list logo
