[hoping I persuaded gmail to get my old text-only email settings back, grrr]
Noticed that my root fs was filling up, and found out that /var/log/messages was
approaching 2GB of space, most of which were as per $subject. To give an idea
of the magnitude, here's a snippet from a saved sample of
[hoping I persuaded gmail to get my old text-only email settings back, grrr]
Noticed that my root fs was filling up, and found out that /var/log/messages was
approaching 2GB of space, most of which were as per $subject. To give an idea
of the magnitude, here's a snippet from a saved sample of
On Feb 17, 2008 12:18 AM, Guillaume Chazarain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2008 6:14 PM, Alessandro Suardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Feb 16 16:51:49 sandman kernel: BUG: rwlock recursion on CPU#0,
>
> Same thing here,
On Feb 16, 2008 6:14 PM, Alessandro Suardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fedora 8 / x86, Dell D610, ipw2200
>
> testcase:
Forgot to mention that this is 100% reproducable.
> 1. boot into runlevel 3
> 2. log on as root on tty1
> 3. start wpa_supplicant
>
> 2.6.25-rc1-
Fedora 8 / x86, Dell D610, ipw2200
testcase:
1. boot into runlevel 3
2. log on as root on tty1
3. start wpa_supplicant
2.6.25-rc1-git4 is okay
2.6.25-rc2 BUGs dumping stack on console, but nothing gets in /var/log/messages
2.6.25-rc2-git1 BUGs dumping stack on console, ONLY this in
Fedora 8 / x86, Dell D610, ipw2200
testcase:
1. boot into runlevel 3
2. log on as root on tty1
3. start wpa_supplicant
2.6.25-rc1-git4 is okay
2.6.25-rc2 BUGs dumping stack on console, but nothing gets in /var/log/messages
2.6.25-rc2-git1 BUGs dumping stack on console, ONLY this in
On Feb 16, 2008 6:14 PM, Alessandro Suardi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fedora 8 / x86, Dell D610, ipw2200
testcase:
Forgot to mention that this is 100% reproducable.
1. boot into runlevel 3
2. log on as root on tty1
3. start wpa_supplicant
2.6.25-rc1-git4 is okay
2.6.25-rc2 BUGs dumping
On Feb 17, 2008 12:18 AM, Guillaume Chazarain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 16, 2008 6:14 PM, Alessandro Suardi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Feb 16 16:51:49 sandman kernel: BUG: rwlock recursion on CPU#0,
Same thing here, bisected it to:
commit 45b503548210fe6f23e92b856421c2a3f05fd034
Author
On Feb 12, 2008 2:44 PM, Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 00:12 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, 11 of February 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > no, they were not lost, they just didnt pass
On Feb 12, 2008 2:44 PM, Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 00:12 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, 11 of February 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no, they were not lost, they just didnt pass QA here (they crashed
On Feb 12, 2008 12:12 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday, 11 of February 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > no, they were not lost, they just didnt pass QA here (they crashed on
> > > a particularly hard to debug 8-way box
On Feb 9, 2008 6:10 PM, Alessandro Suardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I finally had a bit of time to try out different kernel versions to find
> out where this began... and it's in 2.6.24-git2.
>
> What happens: Oracle 11g starts up and forks a number of so
> called
On Feb 12, 2008 12:12 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday, 11 of February 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no, they were not lost, they just didnt pass QA here (they crashed on
a particularly hard to debug 8-way box i have) and Peter
On Feb 9, 2008 6:10 PM, Alessandro Suardi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I finally had a bit of time to try out different kernel versions to find
out where this began... and it's in 2.6.24-git2.
What happens: Oracle 11g starts up and forks a number of so
called background processes. Starting
I finally had a bit of time to try out different kernel versions to find
out where this began... and it's in 2.6.24-git2.
What happens: Oracle 11g starts up and forks a number of so
called background processes. Starting in 2.6.24-git2 the VKTM
process never fully completes its initialization
I finally had a bit of time to try out different kernel versions to find
out where this began... and it's in 2.6.24-git2.
What happens: Oracle 11g starts up and forks a number of so
called background processes. Starting in 2.6.24-git2 the VKTM
process never fully completes its initialization
2008/1/31 Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Update.
>
> On Wednesday, 30 of January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Recently I've been observing problems with unmounting the /home fs on reboot
> > and/or shutdown on two test boxes.
> >
> > After some more investigation I've
2008/1/31 Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Update.
On Wednesday, 30 of January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Hi,
Recently I've been observing problems with unmounting the /home fs on reboot
and/or shutdown on two test boxes.
After some more investigation I've found that this is
On 22 Dec 2007 16:52:56 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "IM" == Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> IM> Distros will likely pick SLUB if there's no performance worries
> IM> and if it's the default. Fedora rawhide already uses SLUB.
>
> Actually, it seems to
On 22 Dec 2007 16:52:56 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IM == Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IM Distros will likely pick SLUB if there's no performance worries
IM and if it's the default. Fedora rawhide already uses SLUB.
Actually, it seems to me that not only
Only saw this once, but it's a relatively short time since I moved
to Fedora 8 (i686, UP) and began building my custom kernels
there... apparently starting my 11.1.0.6 Oracle instance caused
lockdep to trigger this (hoping GMail doesn't mangle the
text too badly):
Only saw this once, but it's a relatively short time since I moved
to Fedora 8 (i686, UP) and began building my custom kernels
there... apparently starting my 11.1.0.6 Oracle instance caused
lockdep to trigger this (hoping GMail doesn't mangle the
text too badly):
On Nov 30, 2007 1:34 PM, Meelis Roos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Can you stick a stack trace in at that point ? That would help diagnose
> > it a great deal quicker.
>
> Finally done - found out hard way that BUG() is too bad and
> dump_st5ack() suits me better.
>
> libata version 3.00 loaded.
On Nov 30, 2007 1:34 PM, Meelis Roos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you stick a stack trace in at that point ? That would help diagnose
it a great deal quicker.
Finally done - found out hard way that BUG() is too bad and
dump_st5ack() suits me better.
libata version 3.00 loaded.
Pid: 661,
On Nov 28, 2007 9:07 PM, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This message comes from 2.6.24-rc3 + todays git, version
> > a531a141089714efe39eca89593524fdf05104f2. I did grep the logs and found
> > that it first appeared in 2.6.24-rc1 (+ some git mayve) on Nov 3.
> > I used 2.6.23 before that
On Nov 28, 2007 9:07 PM, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This message comes from 2.6.24-rc3 + todays git, version
a531a141089714efe39eca89593524fdf05104f2. I did grep the logs and found
that it first appeared in 2.6.24-rc1 (+ some git mayve) on Nov 3.
I used 2.6.23 before that and it did
On Nov 20, 2007 7:52 AM, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 10:47:59PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >
> > This one is definitely messy. There is absolutely no way to know what
> > gcc has miscompiled. It looks to me that both gcc 4.2 and 4.3 are
> > affected, any
On Nov 20, 2007 7:52 AM, Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 10:47:59PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
This one is definitely messy. There is absolutely no way to know what
gcc has miscompiled. It looks to me that both gcc 4.2 and 4.3 are
affected, any others?
I
It's been a while I noticed, but I thought someone would as usual
cook up some fix, while I don't even see the issue been reported...
if this isn't a Linux kernel/net issue just drop my email, thanks.
Error message during cisco_vpn.ko build:
/download/linux/net/vpnclient/interceptor.c:345:23:
It's been a while I noticed, but I thought someone would as usual
cook up some fix, while I don't even see the issue been reported...
if this isn't a Linux kernel/net issue just drop my email, thanks.
Error message during cisco_vpn.ko build:
/download/linux/net/vpnclient/interceptor.c:345:23:
On 10/17/07, Sid Boyce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When booted, it complains that kernel size is too big, but size OK for a
> bzImage, not for zImage as is returned by the file command, -git9 was
> OK, x86_64 SMP kernel on two 64x2 boxes.
> I shall supplymy .config if needed, but they are the
On 10/17/07, Sid Boyce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When booted, it complains that kernel size is too big, but size OK for a
bzImage, not for zImage as is returned by the file command, -git9 was
OK, x86_64 SMP kernel on two 64x2 boxes.
I shall supplymy .config if needed, but they are the same as
On 10/14/07, Patrizio Bassi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner ha scritto:
> > On Sat, 13 Oct 2007, Patrizio Bassi wrote:
> >
> >> include/linux/types.h:15:23: error: asm/types.h: No such file or directory
> >> In file included from include/linux/prefetch.h:13,
> >> from
On 10/14/07, Patrizio Bassi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas Gleixner ha scritto:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007, Patrizio Bassi wrote:
include/linux/types.h:15:23: error: asm/types.h: No such file or directory
In file included from include/linux/prefetch.h:13,
from
On 9/3/07, Gabriel C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Sunday, 2 September 2007 09:54, Prakash Punnoor wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> 2.6.23-rc5 locks up hard (Magic Syskeys won't even work) after a few
> >> minutes
> >> of work on x86_64. 2.6.23-rc4 was fine. I'll try
On 9/3/07, Gabriel C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, 2 September 2007 09:54, Prakash Punnoor wrote:
Hi,
2.6.23-rc5 locks up hard (Magic Syskeys won't even work) after a few
minutes
of work on x86_64. 2.6.23-rc4 was fine. I'll try git-bisect to find out
On 9/3/07, Satyam Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> >
> > Try this from net-2.6 tree:
> >
> > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> > @@ -560,7 +560,7 @@ static u32 tcp_rto_min(struct sock *sk)
> > struct dst_entry *dst
On 9/2/07, charles gagalac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/2/07, daryll q wrote:
> > Upgraded my kernel from 2.6.23-rc2 to 2.6.23-rc5.
> >
> > System hangs (caps lock and scroll lock leds are both flashing).
> >
> > It *randomly* happens but most of the time during after login to KDE.
> >
> >
On 9/2/07, charles gagalac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/2/07, daryll q wrote:
Upgraded my kernel from 2.6.23-rc2 to 2.6.23-rc5.
System hangs (caps lock and scroll lock leds are both flashing).
It *randomly* happens but most of the time during after login to KDE.
I have not
On 9/3/07, Satyam Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
Try this from net-2.6 tree:
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
@@ -560,7 +560,7 @@ static u32 tcp_rto_min(struct sock *sk)
struct dst_entry *dst =
On 8/2/07, Matthew Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am having a problem with the touchpad and pointer stick on my HP compaq
> nc6000 laptop. It only happens when using ACPI.
>
> Both pointing devices work for a while, but eventually start to 'stick'. The
> cursor won't move for about a
On 8/2/07, Matthew Marshall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am having a problem with the touchpad and pointer stick on my HP compaq
nc6000 laptop. It only happens when using ACPI.
Both pointing devices work for a while, but eventually start to 'stick'. The
cursor won't move for about a second,
On 7/23/07, Ismail Dönmez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Monday 23 July 2007 19:43:56 Gabriel C wrote:
> I get some ACPI Exception.
>
> ...
>
> [ 33.075429] ACPI Exception (processor_throttling-0084): AE_NOT_FOUND,
> Evaluating _PTC [20070126] [ 33.075437] ACPI Exception
>
On 7/23/07, Ismail Dönmez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 23 July 2007 19:43:56 Gabriel C wrote:
I get some ACPI Exception.
...
[ 33.075429] ACPI Exception (processor_throttling-0084): AE_NOT_FOUND,
Evaluating _PTC [20070126] [ 33.075437] ACPI Exception
(processor_throttling-0147):
On 7/18/07, john stultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 00:31 +0200, Alessandro Suardi wrote:
> On 7/11/07, john stultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 01:31 +0200, Alessandro Suardi wrote:
> > > On 7/10/07, john st
On 7/18/07, john stultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 00:31 +0200, Alessandro Suardi wrote:
On 7/11/07, john stultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 01:31 +0200, Alessandro Suardi wrote:
On 7/10/07, john stultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-10
On 7/11/07, john stultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 01:31 +0200, Alessandro Suardi wrote:
> On 7/10/07, john stultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 00:29 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 16:27:59 +02
On 7/11/07, john stultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 01:31 +0200, Alessandro Suardi wrote:
On 7/10/07, john stultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 00:29 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 16:27:59 +0200 Alessandro Suardi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
My oldish AMD K7-800's clock began falling behind after
rebooting from 2.6.20 (and 109 days uptime with a spotless
clock) into 2.6.22; time lost is about four minutes each hour.
Turns out that 2.6.22 marks my TSC as unstable and starts
using PIT instead. Rebooting 2.6.22 with clocksource=tsc
My oldish AMD K7-800's clock began falling behind after
rebooting from 2.6.20 (and 109 days uptime with a spotless
clock) into 2.6.22; time lost is about four minutes each hour.
Turns out that 2.6.22 marks my TSC as unstable and starts
using PIT instead. Rebooting 2.6.22 with clocksource=tsc
On 5/13/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, the merge window has closed, and 2.6.22-rc1 is out there.
[snip]
I took a more careful look than with recent -gitXX, and
for reporting's sake here's a few MODPOST warnings:
MODPOST vmlinux
WARNING: init/built-in.o - Section
On 5/13/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am upgrading kernel from 2.4.20-8(default in RH9) to 2.6.xx. when I do
"make" command it gives some output and finally get error saying that,
"BFD: Warning: Writing section '.bss' to huge ( ie negative) file offset
0xc0244000. "
On 5/13/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am upgrading kernel from 2.4.20-8(default in RH9) to 2.6.xx. when I do
make command it gives some output and finally get error saying that,
BFD: Warning: Writing section '.bss' to huge ( ie negative) file offset
0xc0244000.
Objcopy:
On 5/13/07, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, the merge window has closed, and 2.6.22-rc1 is out there.
[snip]
I took a more careful look than with recent -gitXX, and
for reporting's sake here's a few MODPOST warnings:
MODPOST vmlinux
WARNING: init/built-in.o - Section mismatch:
On 4/29/07, David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 14:05:27 -0700
> However I can suggest vpnc (http://www.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/~massar/vpnc/)
> as an alternative. I'm not forced to use Cisco VPN access any more,
> but when I tried
On 4/29/07, David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Roland Dreier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 14:05:27 -0700
However I can suggest vpnc (http://www.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/~massar/vpnc/)
as an alternative. I'm not forced to use Cisco VPN access any more,
but when I tried it, vpnc
On 4/28/07, Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is really a problem for Cisco support, not the kernel people.
(And despite my email address I really have no idea who looks after
the VPN client).
It's ok, I know it's "not a kernel issue". I just asked over here
because I saw network
skb_set_timestamp I can figure out, but the rest is a bit
too hard for me... if anyone has already an idea of how
to fix this, I'd be most grateful.
Cisco VPN client builds and works fine under 2.6.21 vanilla.
thanks in advance for any input ! ciao,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# ciscobuild
make -C
skb_set_timestamp I can figure out, but the rest is a bit
too hard for me... if anyone has already an idea of how
to fix this, I'd be most grateful.
Cisco VPN client builds and works fine under 2.6.21 vanilla.
thanks in advance for any input ! ciao,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# ciscobuild
make -C
On 4/28/07, Roland Dreier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is really a problem for Cisco support, not the kernel people.
(And despite my email address I really have no idea who looks after
the VPN client).
It's ok, I know it's not a kernel issue. I just asked over here
because I saw network code
On 2/14/07, Andreas Gruenbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I've described the problem and possible fixes in the "Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path
for lazy unmounts" thread, Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, I saw that. But there isn't any patch for me to test, and my
userspace remains broken.
On 2/13/07, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I've used 'git bisect' to track down a change in the latest git tree
that is causing dbus-daemon to sit and spin at the time GNOME launches,
preventing nautlius from ever running.
The bad commit is:
commit
On 2/13/07, Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I've used 'git bisect' to track down a change in the latest git tree
that is causing dbus-daemon to sit and spin at the time GNOME launches,
preventing nautlius from ever running.
The bad commit is:
commit
On 2/14/07, Andreas Gruenbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I've described the problem and possible fixes in the Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path
for lazy unmounts thread, Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, I saw that. But there isn't any patch for me to test, and my
userspace remains broken. Please
On 2/4/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In a widely anticipated move, Linux "headcase" Torvalds today announced
the immediate availability of the most advanced Linux kernel to date,
version 2.6.20.
Before downloading the actual new kernel, most avid kernel hackers have
been
On 2/4/07, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a widely anticipated move, Linux headcase Torvalds today announced
the immediate availability of the most advanced Linux kernel to date,
version 2.6.20.
Before downloading the actual new kernel, most avid kernel hackers have
been involved
On 1/5/07, Cyrill V. Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday 05 January 2007 00:16, you wrote:
| On 1/4/07, Cyrill V. Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > Hi,
| > there is SIGSEGV happens in qconf.cc:995
| >
| > str += print_filter(sym->name);
| >
| > but sym points to
On 1/5/07, Cyrill V. Gorcunov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 05 January 2007 00:16, you wrote:
| On 1/4/07, Cyrill V. Gorcunov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Hi,
| there is SIGSEGV happens in qconf.cc:995
|
| str += print_filter(sym-name);
|
| but sym points to 0x1. To
On 1/3/07, Bauke Jan Douma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Not a big deal (I just discovered 'make gconfig'), but I'm experiencing
a reproducible segfault in 'make xconfig', i.e. qconf.
I was wondering if anyone else can reproduce this:
1. QTDIR=/usr/local/lib/qt make xconfig
mine by default
On 1/3/07, Bauke Jan Douma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not a big deal (I just discovered 'make gconfig'), but I'm experiencing
a reproducible segfault in 'make xconfig', i.e. qconf.
I was wondering if anyone else can reproduce this:
1. QTDIR=/usr/local/lib/qt make xconfig
mine by default has
On 1/2/07, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is a slight variant on the patch I posted December 16th to fix
libata combined mode handling. The only real change is that we now
correctly also reserve BAR1,2,4. That is basically a neatness issue.
Jeff was unhappy about two things
1. That it
On 1/2/07, Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a slight variant on the patch I posted December 16th to fix
libata combined mode handling. The only real change is that we now
correctly also reserve BAR1,2,4. That is basically a neatness issue.
Jeff was unhappy about two things
1. That it
ml.org/lkml/2006/12/14/153
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/24/33
Submitter : Alessandro Suardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Caused-By : Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
commit 368c73d4f689dae0807d0a2aa74c61fd2b9b075f
Handled-By : Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Status : peop
://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/24/33
Submitter : Alessandro Suardi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Caused-By : Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
commit 368c73d4f689dae0807d0a2aa74c61fd2b9b075f
Handled-By : Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status : people are working on a fix
Happy 2007 everyone,
--alessandro
...when
On 12/27/06, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 07:08:43PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >I saw that the current Fedora already dynamically links /bin/mount
> >against /usr/lib/libblkid.so. This obviously does not work if
> >/usr is a separate partition that needs
On 12/27/06, Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 07:08:43PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
I saw that the current Fedora already dynamically links /bin/mount
against /usr/lib/libblkid.so. This obviously does not work if
/usr is a separate partition that needs to be
On 12/24/06, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok,
it's a couple of days delayed, because we've been trying to figure out
what is up with the rtorrent hash failures since 2.6.18.3. I don't think
we've made any progress, but we've cleaned up a number of suspects in the
meantime.
It's a
On 12/24/06, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok,
it's a couple of days delayed, because we've been trying to figure out
what is up with the rtorrent hash failures since 2.6.18.3. I don't think
we've made any progress, but we've cleaned up a number of suspects in the
meantime.
It's a
On 12/19/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
to: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2.6.20-rc1-git compilation error drivers/connector/connector.c:138:
error: ?struct work_struct? has no member named ?management?
$ date
Tue Dec 19 10:12:17 CST 2006
$ git pull
On 12/19/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
to: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2.6.20-rc1-git compilation error drivers/connector/connector.c:138:
error: ?struct work_struct? has no member named ?management?
$ date
Tue Dec 19 10:12:17 CST 2006
$ git pull
On 12/18/06, Andrei Popa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 12:41 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > But at the same time, it's interesting that it still happens when we try
> > to re-add the dirty bit. That would tell me that it's
On 12/18/06, Andrei Popa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 12:41 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
But at the same time, it's interesting that it still happens when we try
to re-add the dirty bit. That would tell me that it's one of two
CC [M] drivers/char/hangcheck-timer.o
CC drivers/clocksource/acpi_pm.o
LD drivers/clocksource/built-in.o
CC [M] drivers/connector/cn_queue.o
CC [M] drivers/connector/connector.o
drivers/connector/connector.c: In function 'cn_call_callback':
drivers/connector/connector.c:138:
CC [M] drivers/char/hangcheck-timer.o
CC drivers/clocksource/acpi_pm.o
LD drivers/clocksource/built-in.o
CC [M] drivers/connector/cn_queue.o
CC [M] drivers/connector/connector.o
drivers/connector/connector.c: In function 'cn_call_callback':
drivers/connector/connector.c:138:
On 12/15/06, Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12-12-2006 20:49, Alessandro Suardi wrote:
> Very shortly after boot on my K7-800 running up-to-date FC6
> and 2.6.19-git19; didn't happen in 2.6.19-vanilla:
...
> [ 134.915521] INFO: trying to register non-static key.
On 12/15/06, Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12-12-2006 20:49, Alessandro Suardi wrote:
Very shortly after boot on my K7-800 running up-to-date FC6
and 2.6.19-git19; didn't happen in 2.6.19-vanilla:
...
[ 134.915521] INFO: trying to register non-static key.
[ 134.915890
On 12/14/06, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, the two-week merge period is over, and -rc1 is out there.
Still need this libata-sff.c patch:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel=116343564202844=raw
to have my root device detected, ata_piix probe would otherwise
fail as
On 12/14/06, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, the two-week merge period is over, and -rc1 is out there.
Still need this libata-sff.c patch:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernelm=116343564202844q=raw
to have my root device detected, ata_piix probe would otherwise
fail as
On 12/12/06, Steve Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 13:04 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Alan wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:39:02 -0600
> > Steve Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> All,
> >>
> >> Bisecting reveals that this commit causes the problem:
> >
> > Yes we
Very shortly after boot on my K7-800 running up-to-date FC6
and 2.6.19-git19; didn't happen in 2.6.19-vanilla:
[ 42.911439] EXT3-fs: mounted filesystem with ordered data mode.
[ 43.749614] Adding 248968k swap on /dev/hda5. Priority:-1
extents:1 across:248968k
[ 43.773965] Adding 240932k
Very shortly after boot on my K7-800 running up-to-date FC6
and 2.6.19-git19; didn't happen in 2.6.19-vanilla:
[ 42.911439] EXT3-fs: mounted filesystem with ordered data mode.
[ 43.749614] Adding 248968k swap on /dev/hda5. Priority:-1
extents:1 across:248968k
[ 43.773965] Adding 240932k
On 12/12/06, Steve Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 13:04 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Alan wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:39:02 -0600
Steve Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All,
Bisecting reveals that this commit causes the problem:
Yes we know. There is a libata
On 12/3/06, Alessandro Suardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/3/06, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > ACPI: PCI Interrupt :00:1f.2[B] -> Link [LNKB] -> GSI 5 (level, low)
-> IRQ5
> > > PCI: Unable to reserve I/O region #1:[EMAIL PROTECTED] for dev
On 12/3/06, Alessandro Suardi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/06, Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ACPI: PCI Interrupt :00:1f.2[B] - Link [LNKB] - GSI 5 (level, low)
- IRQ5
PCI: Unable to reserve I/O region #1:[EMAIL PROTECTED] for device
:00:1f.2
ata_piix: probe of :00:1f.2
On 12/3/06, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ACPI: PCI Interrupt :00:1f.2[B] -> Link [LNKB] -> GSI 5 (level, low) ->
IRQ5
> > PCI: Unable to reserve I/O region #1:[EMAIL PROTECTED] for device
:00:1f.2
> > ata_piix: probe of :00:1f.2 failed with error -16
> > [snip]
> > mount:
On 12/3/06, Alessandro Suardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
FC6-latest running on a Latitude D610, SATA hard disk;
2.6.19 is okay, kernel built with oldconfig from the
known-working setup fails to boot not recognizing the
root partition, which is due to ata_piix not loading due
to a P
FC6-latest running on a Latitude D610, SATA hard disk;
2.6.19 is okay, kernel built with oldconfig from the
known-working setup fails to boot not recognizing the
root partition, which is due to ata_piix not loading due
to a PCI I/O reserve error.
Happens both with and without
FC6-latest running on a Latitude D610, SATA hard disk;
2.6.19 is okay, kernel built with oldconfig from the
known-working setup fails to boot not recognizing the
root partition, which is due to ata_piix not loading due
to a PCI I/O reserve error.
Happens both with and without
On 12/3/06, Alessandro Suardi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FC6-latest running on a Latitude D610, SATA hard disk;
2.6.19 is okay, kernel built with oldconfig from the
known-working setup fails to boot not recognizing the
root partition, which is due to ata_piix not loading due
to a PCI I/O
On 12/3/06, Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ACPI: PCI Interrupt :00:1f.2[B] - Link [LNKB] - GSI 5 (level, low) -
IRQ5
PCI: Unable to reserve I/O region #1:[EMAIL PROTECTED] for device
:00:1f.2
ata_piix: probe of :00:1f.2 failed with error -16
[snip]
mount: could not find
1 - 100 of 200 matches
Mail list logo
