On Monday September 24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Add a new super block flag, that results in the VFS not checking if
the current process has enough privileges to do an mknod().
If this flag is set, all mounts for this super block will have the
nodev
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 02:22:20AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.23-rc8/2.6.23-rc8-mm2/
Laurent,
It triggered a WARNING on first run in qemu:
[0.31] WARNING: at arch/x86_64/kernel/smp.c:397 smp_call_function_mask()
[
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 07:19:27PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 02:34:45PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
Ok, how then should I advertise this better? What can we do better to
help userspace programmers out in this regard?
Would you accept a patch which causes the deprecated
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 04:42:41PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
@@ -219,6 +225,9 @@ static inline struct task_grp *task_grp(
#ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_USER_SCHED
tg = p-user-tg;
+#elif CONFIG_FAIR_CGROUP_SCHED
+ tg = container_of(task_subsys_state(p, cpu_cgroup_subsys_id),
+
Tejun Heo wrote:
Alan Cox wrote:
I think there have been enough cases where this draining was necessary.
IIRC, ata_piix was involved in those cases, right? If so, can you
please submit a patch which applies this only to affected controllers?
I don't feel too confident about applying this to
Tejun Heo wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Tejun Heo wrote:
Alan Cox wrote:
I think there have been enough cases where this draining was necessary.
IIRC, ata_piix was involved in those cases, right? If so, can you
please submit a patch which applies this only to affected controllers?
I don't feel
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 06:13:02PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Document dma_flags_set_dmabarrier().
Signed-off-by: Arthur Kepner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This looks really good!
thanks,
grant
Acked-by: Grant Grundler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
DMA-API.txt | 26 ++
And an e1000 id patch.
Please pull from 'upstream-linus' branch of
master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/netdev-2.6.git
upstream-linus
to receive the following updates:
drivers/net/e1000/e1000_ethtool.c |1 +
drivers/net/e1000/e1000_hw.c |1 +
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:42:17 -0700
Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+static noinline void vcompound_free(void *addr)
+{
+ if (in_interrupt()) {
Should be (in_interrupt() || irqs_disabled()) ?
Regards,
-Kame
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
On Thursday 27 September 2007 18:00, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, 27 September 2007 23:29, Mark Lord wrote:
Question: do we disable all CPUs except 0 when doing ACPI power off?
No, but we should.
We used to.
It is absolutely mandatory -- else it confuses the BIOS on some boards
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:35:34AM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
Hi Tapio,
You are the author of these files. Are you still maintaining them?
If not, do you know who is the current maintainer?
These two object files hold the biggest data objects in the whole Linux kernel
after lockdep:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 04:33:54PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This a series of 2 patches that should be applied on top of the other ipc
patches, in 2.6.23-rc6-mm1.
...
They should be applied to 2.6.23-rc6-mm1, in the following order:
Didn't you mean 2.6.23-rc8-mm1, btw?
Regards,
Jarek
Jan Beulich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So we have an unsolvable problem here then, unless infrastructure gets added
that allows a module to declare itself as not-implicit-unload-safe, forcing
modprobe -r to keep its hands off it. Ugly.
Yes I've always wanted to have a separate count that
On 9/27/07, Tejun Heo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Torsten Kaiser wrote:
Known good is for me 2.6.23-rc3-mm1, the first known bad is 2.6.23-rc4-mm1.
I will try to look at the diff between these revisions some more, but
the change in sata_sil24.c looked like a perfect match for the
symptoms I
701 - 714 of 714 matches
Mail list logo
