Re: Bug in ide-pci.c

Sean Estabrooks wrote: Hi Andre, The if() logic must then rely on implementation specific compiler details and not have any optimizations which break this code. While it may "WORK" it isn't particularly reliable code. Sean Nope, the logical ops are sequence points

[PATCH] Re: test9-pre8 -- Question: SMP not yet supported for Athlon systems?

Miles Lane wrote: > > Hi, > > Yesterday I reported a problem compiling with SMP enabled for an > Athlon-targetted kernel. I wonder whether this is because there > are no Athlon SMP systems out there, yet? If so, then if the > architecture selected is Athlon, the SMP option should not be >

[PATCH] Re: test9-pre8 -- Question: SMP not yet supported for Athlon systems?

Miles Lane wrote: Hi, Yesterday I reported a problem compiling with SMP enabled for an Athlon-targetted kernel. I wonder whether this is because there are no Athlon SMP systems out there, yet? If so, then if the architecture selected is Athlon, the SMP option should not be available

Re: configuring from kernel source directory

Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote: > > > and then I made the soft link to point to the new directory. > > If you are talking about a soft link named "linux", just completely > delete it and reset it to the value that it had when you installed > your distribution and then never touch it again. >

Re: Linux 2.2.18pre6

Alan Cox wrote: > [AH>>] > > larger ide-patch. What is it going to take to just accept it? > > I'd prefer to do it bit by bit, driver by driver without touching the core > and picking the important and stable drivers first. On one machine, I have applied ide-2.2.17.all.2904.patch just to

Re: Linux 2.2.18pre6

Alan Cox wrote: [AH] larger ide-patch. What is it going to take to just accept it? I'd prefer to do it bit by bit, driver by driver without touching the core and picking the important and stable drivers first. On one machine, I have applied ide-2.2.17.all.2904.patch just to get the

<    1   2