Re: Why can't I flush /dev/ram0?

2001-06-18 Thread Jan Rekorajski
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Kelledin Tane wrote: > At this point, I'm trying to get an initrd working properly. So far, it > works, the system boots, etc. etc., but whenever I try to do a "blockdev > --flushbufs /dev/ram0", I get "device or resource busy" > > When I mount the filesystem to check it ou

Re: [UPDATE] zerocopy BETA 3

2001-02-24 Thread Jan Rekorajski
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Chris Wedgwood wrote: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 11:42:49AM +0100, Jan Rekorajski wrote: > > Could you please make a patch with this fix only? Or is it > available somewhere? > [cut incomplete patch ;)] There are more changes, I hacked'em ou

Re: [UPDATE] zerocopy BETA 3

2001-02-23 Thread Jan Rekorajski
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, David S. Miller wrote: > > Usual spot: > > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/davem/zerocopy-2.4.2-2.diff.gz > > Changes since last installment: > > 3) Workaround for win2000/95 VJ header compression bugs is >implemented. Could you please make a patch with

[PATCH] ATM breakage introduced in 2.4.0

2001-01-11 Thread Jan Rekorajski
Hi, 2.4.0 introduced serious breakage to LANE. It's impossible to do ifdown lec? ; ifup lec? because memory allocated by lec? is freed but unregister_netdev() is not called, so SIOCGIFFLAGS tells me ok, but SIOCSIFFLAGS tells me -ENODEV. No, rmmod lec ; insmod lec does not help. Patch follows --

[PATCH] 2.4.0 drivers/atm/Makefile...

2001-01-05 Thread Jan Rekorajski
...is still broken. It does not build Fore 200e driver. Jan --- linux/drivers/atm/Makefile.orig Tue Jan 2 10:18:25 2001 +++ linux/drivers/atm/Makefile Tue Jan 2 12:00:05 2001 @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ endif endif -obj-$(CONFIG_ATM_FORE200E) += fore200e.o $(FORE200E_FW_OBJS) +obj-$(CONFIG_AT

[PATCH] Makefile fix for FORE 200e and a typo in lec.c

2001-01-02 Thread Jan Rekorajski
Hi, The Fore dirver in 2.4.0-prerelease just does not build with the current makefile. This patch fixes it (works for me): --- linux/drivers/atm/Makefile.orig Tue Jan 2 10:18:25 2001 +++ linux/drivers/atm/Makefile Tue Jan 2 12:00:05 2001 @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ endif endif -obj-$(CONFIG_AT

[PATCH] ATM LANE modular build

2000-12-31 Thread Jan Rekorajski
Hi, Due to latest Makefile changes ATM LANE won't build as module. The following patch fixes it. --- linux/net/atm/Makefile.orig Sun Dec 31 17:57:15 2000 +++ linux/net/atm/Makefile Sun Dec 31 19:04:49 2000 @@ -33,7 +33,13 @@ obj-y += proc.o endif -obj-$(CONFIG_ATM_LANE) += lec.o lane_mpo

Re: 2.4.0-test9 problem

2000-12-10 Thread Jan Rekorajski
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, Maciej Bogucki wrote: > HI! > I have 2.4.0-test9 and 2.2.16 kernel compiled on my computer .I have > httpd server on this computer . With 2.2.16 apache work good ( via DSL > and modem ), but with 2.4 ( the same computer ) , when I wont to connect > to my page via modem first

Re: [PATCH] no RLIMIT_NPROC for root, please

2000-11-30 Thread Jan Rekorajski
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Jan Rekorajski wrote: > > > > --- linux/kernel/fork.c~Tue Sep 5 23:48:59 2000 > > > > +++ linux/kernel/fork.c Sun Nov 26 20:22:20 2000 > > > >

Re: [PATCH] no RLIMIT_NPROC for root, please

2000-11-28 Thread Jan Rekorajski
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Alan Cox wrote: > > Why is RLIMIT_NPROC apllied to root(uid 0) processes? It's not kernel j= > > ob to > > prevent admin from shooting him/her self in the foot. > > > > root should be able to do fork() regardless of any limits, > > and IMHO the following patch is the right t

Re: [PATCH] no RLIMIT_NPROC for root, please

2000-11-28 Thread Jan Rekorajski
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Jan Rekorajski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > |> Why is RLIMIT_NPROC apllied to root(uid 0) processes? It's not kernel job to > |> prevent admin from shooting him/her self in the foot. > |> > |> root shou

Re: [PATCH] no RLIMIT_NPROC for root, please

2000-11-28 Thread Jan Rekorajski
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote: > On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Jan Rekorajski wrote: > > --- linux/kernel/fork.c~Tue Sep 5 23:48:59 2000 > > +++ linux/kernel/fork.c Sun Nov 26 20:22:20 2000 > > @@ -560,7 +560,8 @@ > > *p = *current; > > >

[PATCH] no RLIMIT_NPROC for root, please

2000-11-28 Thread Jan Rekorajski
Why is RLIMIT_NPROC apllied to root(uid 0) processes? It's not kernel job to prevent admin from shooting him/her self in the foot. root should be able to do fork() regardless of any limits, and IMHO the following patch is the right thing. --- linux/kernel/fork.c~Tue Sep 5 23:48:59 200

Re: setrlimit() and 2.4.0-test11

2000-11-26 Thread Jan Rekorajski
On Wed, 22 Nov 2000, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote: > > Is probably broken (I didnt't saw any disscusion about this here, > I missed it?). > > when I try to start first user process I get: > 4366 fork()= -1 EAGAIN (Resource temporarily >unavailable) > but strace show