Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
This already exists -- it just not open sourced, and you could spend
years trying to create it. Trust me, once you start dealing with the
distributed issues with this, its gets very complex. I am not meaning
to discourage you, but there are patents already filed on
On Jun 16, 2007, Dmitry Torokhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Then, any redistributor adds a copy of any version of the GPL (because
>> >> you didn't specify a version number). At this point, is the program
>> >> licensed by *you* only under this specific license?
>>
>> > If they did not mak
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 23:22 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > For the architecture we use (Blackfin), it does not support unaligned
> > accesses, and we purposely never put in the trap/fixup code - we trap, and
> > printk("fix your source");
>
> For the kernel you should fix up too in addition to the p
This already exists -- it just not open sourced, and you could spend
years trying to create it. Trust me, once you start dealing with the
distributed issues with this, its gets very complex. I am not meaning
to discourage you, but there are patents already filed on this on
Linux.So you
On Jun 16, 2007, "Scott Preece" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 2007, "Scott Preece" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Whether it's a legal requirement or a business decision, the result is
>> > the same - neither forcing the man
Chris Snook wrote:
> The underlying internal implementation of something like this wouldn't
> be all that hard on many filesystems, but it's the interface that's the
> problem. The ':' character is a perfectly legal filename character, so
> doing it that way would break things.
But to work withou
On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> because it could easily be argued that they linked the BIOS with the
> Linux kernel
How so?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler E
On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 15 June 2007 23:44:00 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 16, 2007, Tim Post <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 23:29 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> >> Tivo has two choices: either it gives
>> >> users the conten
alan wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> This is one of those things that seems like a good idea, but frequently
>> ends up short. Part of the problem is that "whenever you modify a file"
>> is ill-defined, or rather, if you were to take the literal meaning of it
>> you'd end up
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Greg KH wrote:
Usually you don't do that by doing a 'mv' otherwise you are almost
guaranteed stale and mixed up content for some period of time, not to
mention the issues surrounding paths that might be messed up.
on the contrary, useing 'mv' is by far the cleanest way to
David Greaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> How hard would it be to reprogramm the flash?
>
> The flash contains hashes signed by the companies private key.
>
> The kernel contains the public key. It can decrypt the hashes but the
> private key isn't available to encrypt them. So although you can
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
I am not sure (would have to check again), but I believe both opensuse and
fedora (the latter of which uses LVM for all partitions by default) have
that working, while still using GRUB.
Keyword: partitions. I.e., they partition the hard drive (so that the first
31 sector
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Neil Brown wrote:
It would be possible to have a 'this is not initialised' flag on the
array, and if that is not set, always do a reconstruct-write rather
than a read-modify-write. But the first time you have an unclean
shutdown you are going to resync all the parity anyway
David Brown wrote:
>
> Yes thank you for the fix Avi. btw what version of kvm is in 2.6.22?
> the kvm wiki doesn't say.
>
It's somewhere between kvm-21 and kvm-22. Any recent version of the
userspace can be used to drive it (i.e. starting with 2.6.22, there is
no need to match kernel and userspac
Luca Tettamanti wrote:
> Il Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 12:06:50PM +0300, Avi Kivity ha scritto:
>
>>> After a bit of thinking: it's correct but removes an optimization;
>>> furthermore it may miss other instructions that write to memory mapped
>>> areas.
>>> A more proper fix should be "force the wri
On 5/19/07, Török Edvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I tried -v13. However the scheduling "error" is now 10% (vs 2% with -v12).
I also noticed strange behaviour with CPU hotplug. I offlined cpu1
(echo 0 >/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online), and the typing speed on
my terminal decreased noticably.
* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Furthermore when you get source code of free software then there is
> > no "meeting of minds" needed for you to accept the GPL's conditions,
> > and only the letter of the license (and, in case of any ambiguities,
> > the intent of the author of
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 08:53:33 +0200 Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Still I can not explain, why this resulted in this strange "disappear in
> > the return instruction" behavior.
>
> I put up a fixed patch series against rc4-mm to:
>
> http://www.tglx.de/projects/hrtimers/2.6.22-rc
On 6/13/07, Török Edvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
When I run a multithreaded application, consisting of a "main thread"
that is mostly idle, and
3 "worker threads" (using as much CPU as they can get), 'top' and 'ps'
show that
the application uses 0% CPU.
If I turn off thread details in top,
Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
David Greaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This 5 minute design undoubtedly has flaws but it shows a direction:
A basically standard 'De11' PC with some flash.
A Tivoised boot system so only signed kernels boot.
A modified kernel that only runs (FOSS) executables whose si
Hi!
> I have a laptop Toshiba M45-S355 (with Intel Pentium M
> Processor 750 - 1.86GHz) and trip points show me
> hi-temperature (that is unsupported by this processor):
>
> $ uname -a
> Linux mandachuva 2.6.21.1 #1 PREEMPT Sun May 20 22:28:53
> BRT 2007 i686 GNU/Linux
>
> $ cat /proc/acpi/th
Hi!
> > The question is: why not just extend SELinux to include AA functionality
> > rather than doing a whole new subsystem.
>
> Because, as hard as it seems for some people to believe,
> not everyone wants Type Enforcement. SELinux is a fine
> implementation of type enforcement, but if you don'
201 - 222 of 222 matches
Mail list logo
