> George France <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Here is a trivial patch that will make ksymoops work again on Alpha.
Cleaner patch.
diff -urN linux-2.4.5-ac3-orig/arch/alpha/kernel/traps.c
linux-2.4.5/arch/alpha/kernel/traps.c
--- linux-2.4.5-ac3-orig/arch/alpha/kernel/traps.c
Here is a trivial patch that will make ksymoops work again on Alpha.
--George
diff -urN linux-2.4.5-ac3-orig/arch/alpha/kernel/traps.c
linux/arch/alpha/kernel/traps.c
--- linux-2.4.5-ac3-orig/arch/alpha/kernel/traps.c Thu May 24 17:24:37 2001
+++ linux/arch/alpha/kernel/traps.c Mon
On Monday 28 May 2001 13:45, Jay Thorne wrote:
> Problem solved, thanks to the rawhide patch from Richard Henderson
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) posted on Sunday. Performance is ~10megs/second both
> directions, using tulip, de4x5 or via-rhine.
Well Done, Richard.
>
> Using 2.4.4-ac15 it works fine.
On Monday 28 May 2001 13:45, Jay Thorne wrote:
Problem solved, thanks to the rawhide patch from Richard Henderson
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) posted on Sunday. Performance is ~10megs/second both
directions, using tulip, de4x5 or via-rhine.
Well Done, Richard.
Using 2.4.4-ac15 it works fine. I'm
Here is a trivial patch that will make ksymoops work again on Alpha.
--George
diff -urN linux-2.4.5-ac3-orig/arch/alpha/kernel/traps.c
linux/arch/alpha/kernel/traps.c
--- linux-2.4.5-ac3-orig/arch/alpha/kernel/traps.c Thu May 24 17:24:37 2001
+++ linux/arch/alpha/kernel/traps.c Mon
George France [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is a trivial patch that will make ksymoops work again on Alpha.
Cleaner patch.
diff -urN linux-2.4.5-ac3-orig/arch/alpha/kernel/traps.c
linux-2.4.5/arch/alpha/kernel/traps.c
--- linux-2.4.5-ac3-orig/arch/alpha/kernel/traps.c Thu May 24 17:24
Hello Andrea,
Jay, if the problem still exist in 2.4.5-pre6aa1 (please try the new kernel),
then I will have tech op's check this on Tuesday (Monday is a US holiday).
We should be able to duplicate this in the hardware lab and find the problem
with a logic analyser.
Best Regards,
--George
On Friday 25 May 2001 19:05, Jay Thorne wrote:
> On 25 May 2001 18:52:33 -0400, George France wrote:
> > Hello Jay,
> >
> > I see that you are using the tulip driver. Could you try the de4x5
> > driver??
>
> Its worse: reports 3.1 MBs and 1.6 MBs
wuftp is no
Hello Jay,
I see that you are using the tulip driver. Could you try the de4x5 driver??
Best Regards,
--George
On Friday 25 May 2001 17:50, Jay Thorne wrote:
> [1.] One line summary of the problem:
> Kernel 2.4.4 ac15
> Tested with several cards and pieces of software, the outbound
Hello Jay,
I see that you are using the tulip driver. Could you try the de4x5 driver??
Best Regards,
--George
On Friday 25 May 2001 17:50, Jay Thorne wrote:
[1.] One line summary of the problem:
Kernel 2.4.4 ac15
Tested with several cards and pieces of software, the outbound bandwidth
On Friday 25 May 2001 19:05, Jay Thorne wrote:
On 25 May 2001 18:52:33 -0400, George France wrote:
Hello Jay,
I see that you are using the tulip driver. Could you try the de4x5
driver??
Its worse: reports 3.1 MBs and 1.6 MBs
wuftp is not exactly a performance benchmark, have you
Hello Andrea,
Jay, if the problem still exist in 2.4.5-pre6aa1 (please try the new kernel),
then I will have tech op's check this on Tuesday (Monday is a US holiday).
We should be able to duplicate this in the hardware lab and find the problem
with a logic analyser.
Best Regards,
--George
diff -urN linux-2.4.2-ac20-orig/drivers/net/de4x5.c
linux-2.4.2-ac20/drivers/net/de4x5.c
--- linux-2.4.2-ac20-orig/drivers/net/de4x5.c Mon Mar 19 17:24:04 2001
+++ linux-2.4.2-ac20/drivers/net/de4x5.cMon Mar 19 18:32:01 2001
@@ -429,11 +429,17 @@
<[EMAIL
diff -urN linux-2.4.2-ac20-orig/drivers/net/de4x5.c
linux-2.4.2-ac20/drivers/net/de4x5.c
--- linux-2.4.2-ac20-orig/drivers/net/de4x5.c Mon Mar 19 17:24:04 2001
+++ linux-2.4.2-ac20/drivers/net/de4x5.cMon Mar 19 18:32:01 2001
@@ -429,11 +429,17 @@
[EMAIL
Alan, excuse me, would you like to rephase that?? I already told Russell I
agreed with him that nothing could be done, at this late date. Read the
archives.
I quote myself. "I will agree with you that there is probably nothing that
can be done this
close to the release of 2.4.0"
Please also
> > believe that no problem can be solved with a flame war
> going on. That is why
> > I decide to stop speaking with him about the serial port
> issue. He then
> > decided to block the e-mails. So here we are.
>
> Well if you arent speaking to him, then it doesnt matter if
> he blocks your
>
Hello Alan;
> I can see where his confusion arises, but yes you are right,
> people need to be
> able to mix the 16x50 driver with the sa1100 driver. The ppc
> people went through
> fixing this.
Yes you should be able to mix 16x50 chips with sa1100 chips. That is not the
issue. I believe
Hello Mike;
> Ok. I didn't mean to imply anything.. It just wasn't clear, and
> due to the nature of the discussion, it seemed that it might have
> been a private message..
>
No problem. I should have took more time in writing my e-mail and inserted
the headers.
Best Regards,
--George
-
Eric Mouw from the LART group will be posting the whole thing in a little
while.
Patience.
--George
> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 5:12 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Russell King
Relax. Russel posted this to a public mailing list.
--George
> If that was a personal email from him to you (ie: not public)
> then it was very distasteful and disrespectful of you to post it
> here publically. You should have at least quoted the header
> lines to make it clear...
>
> Just my
Russell;
>
> George France writes:
> > As you probably know Russell King is the maintainer of ARM
> Linux. Him and I
> > have been debating how serial ports should be handled on an
> off for months
> > now. IMHO, today he lost it,
>
> Please note that a
mailing list
and web pages, for those that wish to participate. It is too bad that
Russell has decided to create a fork in the ARM Linux tree. It is his
choice.
Attached is his e-mail for the curious.
Best Regards,
--George
George France, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cambridge Research Laboratory, Compaq
mailing list
and web pages, for those that wish to participate. It is too bad that
Russell has decided to create a fork in the ARM Linux tree. It is his
choice.
Attached is his e-mail for the curious.
Best Regards,
--George
George France, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cambridge Research Laboratory, Compaq
Russell;
George France writes:
As you probably know Russell King is the maintainer of ARM
Linux. Him and I
have been debating how serial ports should be handled on an
off for months
now. IMHO, today he lost it,
Please note that at every instance, George has totally
ignored my
Eric Mouw from the LART group will be posting the whole thing in a little
while.
Patience.
--George
-Original Message-
From: Alan Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 5:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Russell King forks
Relax. Russel posted this to a public mailing list.
--George
If that was a personal email from him to you (ie: not public)
then it was very distasteful and disrespectful of you to post it
here publically. You should have at least quoted the header
lines to make it clear...
Just my $0.02
Hello Mike;
Ok. I didn't mean to imply anything.. It just wasn't clear, and
due to the nature of the discussion, it seemed that it might have
been a private message..
No problem. I should have took more time in writing my e-mail and inserted
the headers.
Best Regards,
--George
-
To
Hello Alan;
I can see where his confusion arises, but yes you are right,
people need to be
able to mix the 16x50 driver with the sa1100 driver. The ppc
people went through
fixing this.
Yes you should be able to mix 16x50 chips with sa1100 chips. That is not the
issue. I believe that
believe that no problem can be solved with a flame war
going on. That is why
I decide to stop speaking with him about the serial port
issue. He then
decided to block the e-mails. So here we are.
Well if you arent speaking to him, then it doesnt matter if
he blocks your
emails..
I
Alan, excuse me, would you like to rephase that?? I already told Russell I
agreed with him that nothing could be done, at this late date. Read the
archives.
I quote myself. "I will agree with you that there is probably nothing that
can be done this
close to the release of 2.4.0"
Please also
Hello Pavel;
> Is anyone using cramfs?
>
We use cramfs everyday at http://handhelds.org with Linux
2.4.0-test6-rmk1-np2-hh1. We have no problems.
> I copy cramfs image from nfs onto /dev/ram0, then mount it. It mounts,
> and first few accesses are okay, but then it breaks. ls shows garbage
>
Hello Pavel;
Is anyone using cramfs?
We use cramfs everyday at http://handhelds.org with Linux
2.4.0-test6-rmk1-np2-hh1. We have no problems.
I copy cramfs image from nfs onto /dev/ram0, then mount it. It mounts,
and first few accesses are okay, but then it breaks. ls shows garbage
etc.
32 matches
Mail list logo
