Chris Wright wrote:
You missed one subtle point. That failure case actually unaccts 0 pages
(note the use of charge). Not the nicest, but I believe correct.
Right. I did miss that. Thanks for the explanations, Chris and Hugh, I
appreciate it.
Mark F. Haigh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe
Chris Wright wrote:
snip
You missed one subtle point. That failure case actually unaccts 0 pages
(note the use of charge). Not the nicest, but I believe correct.
Right. I did miss that. Thanks for the explanations, Chris and Hugh, I
appreciate it.
Mark F. Haigh
[EMAIL PROTECTED
);
/* ... */
If security_vm_enough_memory() fails there, then we vm_unacct_memory()
that we never accounted (if security_vm_enough_memory() fails, no memory
is accounted).
If it is in fact a bug, a simple but largely untested patch (against
2.6.11-rc3-bk5) is included.
Mark F. Haigh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off
there, then we vm_unacct_memory()
that we never accounted (if security_vm_enough_memory() fails, no memory
is accounted).
If it is in fact a bug, a simple but largely untested patch (against
2.6.11-rc3-bk5) is included.
Mark F. Haigh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- linux-2.6.11-rc3-bk5/kernel/fork.c.orig
there, then we vm_unacct_memory()
that we never accounted (if security_vm_enough_memory() fails, no memory
is accounted).
If it is in fact a bug, a simple but largely untested patch (against
2.6.11-rc3-bk5) is included.
Mark F. Haigh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- linux-2.6.11-rc3-bk5/kernel/fork.c.orig
);
/* ... */
If security_vm_enough_memory() fails there, then we vm_unacct_memory()
that we never accounted (if security_vm_enough_memory() fails, no memory
is accounted).
If it is in fact a bug, a simple but largely untested patch (against
2.6.11-rc3-bk5) is included.
Mark F. Haigh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off
Mark F. Haigh wrote:
Apologies. Patch now -p1-able.
[Apologies yet again, now includes description]
I'd submitted a patch earlier for this file, fixing a warning. When I
looked at it further, I noticed it can output an incorrect warning
message under certain circumstances. I've confirmed
Mark F. Haigh wrote:
Apologies. Patch now -p1-able.
[Apolgies yet again, description included now]
Noticed that in drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx.c:
sym53c8xx.c:13185: warning: integer constant is too large for "long" type
Since we're not dealing with C99 (yet), this 64 bit integer cons
ot;pin @" to be output, because 'A' + 0 - 1 == '@'.
The supplied patch should fix it. It also removes a redundant check for
a nonzero pin.
Mark F. Haigh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Mark F. Haigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- linux-2.6.11-rc3-bk4/arch/i386/pci/irq.c.orig 2005
Mark F. Haigh wrote:
--- arch/i386/kernel/pci-irq.c.orig 2005-02-07 19:55:23.852531544 -0800
+++ arch/i386/kernel/pci-irq.c 2005-02-07 20:13:38.835068896 -0800
Apologies. Patch now -p1-able.
Mark F. Haigh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Mark F. Haigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- linux-2.4.
Mark F. Haigh wrote:
--- drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx.c.orig 2005-02-07 19:53:05.741527608 -0800
+++ drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx.c2005-02-07 19:53:36.782808616 -0800
Apologies. Patch now -p1-able.
Mark F. Haigh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Mark F. Haigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- linux-2.4.
Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 09:06:18PM -0800, Mark F. Haigh wrote:
> --- arch/i386/pci/irq.c.orig 2005-02-07 20:40:58.140856536 -0800
> +++ arch/i386/pci/irq.c 2005-02-07 20:46:06.713946296 -0800
Can you resend this so it can be applied with -p1 to patch, and a
Sign
t; to be output, because 'A' + 0 - 1 == '@'.
The supplied patch should fix it. It also removes a redundant check for
a nonzero pin.
Mark F. Haigh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- arch/i386/pci/irq.c.orig2005-02-07 20:40:58.140856536 -0800
+++ arch/i386/pci/irq.c 2005-02-07 20:46:06.713946296 -0800
@@ -1031,56 +1031,55 @
Same patch, now against 2.4.29-bk8:
Noticed that in drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx.c:
sym53c8xx.c:13185: warning: integer constant is too large for "long" type
Since we're not dealing with C99 (yet), this 64 bit integer constant
needs to be suffixed with ULL. Patch included.
Mark F. Ha
I'd submitted a patch earlier for this file, fixing a warning. When I
looked at it further, I noticed it can output an incorrect warning
message under certain circumstances. I've confirmed that this can and
does happen in the wild:
PCI: Enabling device :00:0a.0 ( -> 0001)
PCI: No IRQ
I'd submitted a patch earlier for this file, fixing a warning. When I
looked at it further, I noticed it can output an incorrect warning
message under certain circumstances. I've confirmed that this can and
does happen in the wild:
PCI: Enabling device :00:0a.0 ( - 0001)
PCI: No IRQ
Same patch, now against 2.4.29-bk8:
Noticed that in drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx.c:
sym53c8xx.c:13185: warning: integer constant is too large for long type
Since we're not dealing with C99 (yet), this 64 bit integer constant
needs to be suffixed with ULL. Patch included.
Mark F. Haigh
[EMAIL PROTECTED
patch should fix it. It also removes a redundant check for
a nonzero pin.
Mark F. Haigh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- arch/i386/pci/irq.c.orig2005-02-07 20:40:58.140856536 -0800
+++ arch/i386/pci/irq.c 2005-02-07 20:46:06.713946296 -0800
@@ -1031,56 +1031,55 @@
pci_read_config_byte(dev
Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 09:06:18PM -0800, Mark F. Haigh wrote:
snip
--- arch/i386/pci/irq.c.orig 2005-02-07 20:40:58.140856536 -0800
+++ arch/i386/pci/irq.c 2005-02-07 20:46:06.713946296 -0800
Can you resend this so it can be applied with -p1 to patch, and a
Signed-off
Mark F. Haigh wrote:
--- drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx.c.orig 2005-02-07 19:53:05.741527608 -0800
+++ drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx.c2005-02-07 19:53:36.782808616 -0800
Apologies. Patch now -p1-able.
Mark F. Haigh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Mark F. Haigh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- linux-2.4.29-bk8
Mark F. Haigh wrote:
--- arch/i386/kernel/pci-irq.c.orig 2005-02-07 19:55:23.852531544 -0800
+++ arch/i386/kernel/pci-irq.c 2005-02-07 20:13:38.835068896 -0800
Apologies. Patch now -p1-able.
Mark F. Haigh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Mark F. Haigh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- linux-2.4.29-bk8/arch
'A' + 0 - 1 == '@'.
The supplied patch should fix it. It also removes a redundant check for
a nonzero pin.
Mark F. Haigh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Mark F. Haigh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- linux-2.6.11-rc3-bk4/arch/i386/pci/irq.c.orig 2005-02-07
20:40:58.0 -0800
+++ linux-2.6.11-rc3
Mark F. Haigh wrote:
Apologies. Patch now -p1-able.
[Apolgies yet again, description included now]
Noticed that in drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx.c:
sym53c8xx.c:13185: warning: integer constant is too large for long type
Since we're not dealing with C99 (yet), this 64 bit integer constant
needs
Mark F. Haigh wrote:
Apologies. Patch now -p1-able.
[Apologies yet again, now includes description]
I'd submitted a patch earlier for this file, fixing a warning. When I
looked at it further, I noticed it can output an incorrect warning
message under certain circumstances. I've confirmed
emove the duplicate check and shift everything
else over.
Mark F. Haigh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- arch/i386/kernel/pci-irq.c.orig 2005-02-02 18:33:56.694474944 -0800
+++ arch/i386/kernel/pci-irq.c 2005-02-02 18:58:18.828196832 -0800
@@ -1134,36 +1134,34 @@
if (io_a
Noticed that in drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx.c:
sym53c8xx.c:13185: warning: integer constant is too large for "long" type
Since we're not dealing with C99 (yet), this 64 bit integer constant
needs to be suffixed with ULL. Patch included.
Mark F. Haigh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- drivers/scsi/sym53c
and shift everything
else over.
Mark F. Haigh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- arch/i386/kernel/pci-irq.c.orig 2005-02-02 18:33:56.694474944 -0800
+++ arch/i386/kernel/pci-irq.c 2005-02-02 18:58:18.828196832 -0800
@@ -1134,36 +1134,34 @@
if (io_apic_assign_pci_irqs
27 matches
Mail list logo
