Does anyone remember when linux smbfs (or cifs) gained large file
(>2GB, >4GB) file support?
At least most 2.2.x didn't have it (were there 2.2 smbfs LFS patches?)
Was 2.4 the first kernel to support large files on smbfs?
-- v --
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 03:20:55PM +0200, you [Willy Tarreau] wrote:
> OK. And your config seems perfectly standard.
>
> > gcc 2.96-129:
> > cat /proc/version
> > Linux version 2.4.35 (root) (gcc version 2.96 2731 (Red Hat Linux 7.2
> > 2.96-129.7.2)) #1 SMP Thu Aug 9 10:35:37 EEST 2007
>
>
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 11:47:05PM +0200, you [Willy Tarreau] wrote:
> Thanks for your report. Unfortunately, I've rechecked the recent changelogs
> and see nothing related either. At least, in order to keep trace of the
> incident, would you please post some info about your config (CPU, RAM,
> chi
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 06:22:56PM +0200, you [Jan Kara] wrote:
> > Sorry for the sparse details, but when you have these kind of problems on
> > live servers, you tend to forget the debuggability...
> Yes, I can understand that :). It's just that now it's hard to find
> out what has really happe
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 05:12:06PM +0200, you [Jan Kara] wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > I got a bunch of these into dmesg:
> >
> > EXT3-fs error (device sd(8,2)): ext3_readdir: bad entry in directory
> > #323880: rec_len is smaller than minimal - offset=0, inode=0, rec_len=0,
> > name_len=0
> > EXT3-f
Hello,
I got a bunch of these into dmesg:
EXT3-fs error (device sd(8,2)): ext3_readdir: bad entry in directory #323880:
rec_len is smaller than minimal - offset=0, inode=0, rec_len=0, name_len=0
EXT3-fs error (device sd(8,2)): ext3_readdir: bad entry in directory #323888:
rec_len is smaller th
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 04:17:14PM +0200, you [Michal Piotrowski] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11/07/07, Ville Herva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[98790.366620] Modules linked in: ub nvidia(P) ppp_deflate zlib_deflate
>
> "When you are using a binary driver, the kernel
First: thanks for the new partition print out when failing to mount rootfs.
That came in handy on the very first boot (I had switched harddisks around
and failed to guess the correct root device 2102). I've been longing for
that sort of printout for years. Very useful.
Anyway, 2.6.22, seems pretty
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 12:00:30PM +0900, you [Tejun Heo] wrote:
> Ville Herva wrote:
> >When ripping a cd with grip, I noticed the drive was not in DMA mode. I did
> >hdparm -d1 /dev/hdi. The grip process (it uses libcdda_paranoia.so and
> >libcdda_interface.so) hung, and at
After upgrading the kernel from 2.6.10-ac8 to 2.6.12.5 the initramfs was no
longer able to mount rootfs.
mount: error 6 mounting ext3
All the configuration options are identical, and upgrading lvm2 package:
lvm2-2.00.25-1.01 -> lvm2-2.01.14-1.0
device-mapper-1.00.19-2 -> device-mapper
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 07:25:58PM +0200, you [Willy Tarreau] wrote:
>
> Since you don't seem to be willing to remove vserver, I guess you really
> need it on this machine, and to be honnest,
Yes, the machine is in production, and for that it, it needs vserver. The
fact it is in production also
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 10:34:05AM +0300, [Ville Herva] wrote:
>
> I just upgraded from linux-2.4.21 + vserser 0.17 to 2.4.30rc3 + vserver
> 1.2.10. The box has been running stable with 2.4.21 + vserver 0.17/0.16 for
> a few years (uptime before reboot was nearly 400 days.)
>
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 01:28:01PM -0300, you [Marcelo Tosatti] wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Here goes -rc3.
>
> A nasty typo happened while merging v2.6 load_elf_library() DoS fix,
> which could leap to oopses.
>
> Summary of changes from v2.4.30-rc2 to v2.4.30-rc3
> ===
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 01:00:33PM -0400, you [Richard B. Johnson] claimed:
> > Jul 2 15:12:16 gateway SERVER[1240]: Dispatch_input: bad request line
> > 'BBXX%.176u%3
> >
>00$nsecurity.%301$n%302$n%.192u%303$n\220\220\220\220\220\220\220\220\220\220\220\220\220\220\220\220\220\2
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 11:56:51AM +0100, you [Stephen C. Tweedie] claimed:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 11:09:33AM +0300, Ville Herva wrote:
>
> > Well, I for one use the 2.2 ide patches extensively (on almost all of my
> > machines, including a heavy-duty backup s
On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 07:42:13PM +0100, you [Stephen C. Tweedie] claimed:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 08:16:12PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> >
> > oops in iput - Kernel 2.2.19/i386 + ide-udma patches + ext3 patches (0.0.7a)
>
> The ide-udma patches for 2.2 haven't had nearly the test
It seems that all updatedb processes hang when accessing my 2GB fat partition.
The kernel spits these:
Jun 24 04:02:29 terminator kernel: Filesystem panic (dev 08:01).
Jun 24 04:02:29 terminator kernel: FAT error
Jun 24 04:02:29 terminator kernel: Directory 889834: bad FAT
Jun 24 04:02:32 termi
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 06:11:48PM +0200, you [André Dahlqvist] claimed:
> Rodrigo Ventura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > - it could be a memory problem, but if it were, lots of kernel
> > oops were expected, right?
>
> This certainly sounds like a memory problem. I experienced almost the same
On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 01:28:31PM +0300, you [Ville Herva] claimed:
>
> The other OOPS (http://v.iki.fi/~vherva/tmp/bootlog.grub and
> http://v.iki.fi/~vherva/tmp/ksymoops-grub) still remains:
That one appears to be because it couldn't find the initrd (incorrect boot
param, my
On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 01:05:07PM +0300, you [Ville Herva] claimed:
> On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 06:02:54PM +0900, you [Masaru Kawashima] claimed:
> > On Mon, 28 May 2001 10:25:51 +0300
> > Ville Herva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The oops call tr
On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 06:02:54PM +0900, you [Masaru Kawashima] claimed:
> On Mon, 28 May 2001 10:25:51 +0300
> Ville Herva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The oops call trace seems to be the same as in
> >
> > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=990
On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 12:12:20AM +0300, you [Ville Herva] claimed:
> On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 07:26:50PM +0300, you [Ville Herva] claimed:
> >
> > I have a reproducible oops on 2.4.4ac17 at initrd unmount (see
> > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=990799484
On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 07:26:50PM +0300, you [Ville Herva] claimed:
> On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 10:58:25PM +0100, you [Alan Cox] claimed:
> >
> > o Free the initial ramdisk correctly
>
> Who made this fix, or who can I contact?
>
> I have a reproducible oo
On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 02:18:57PM -0400, you [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] claimed:
> All,
>
> I have been getting a oops ever since 2.4.4-ac17 right after the kernel loads
> the sym53c895 driver. I hand copied part of the oops before rebooting. This
> happens in every kernel since 2.4.4-ac17. I have ch
> > * Dynamic Memory Resilience
>
> RAM fault tolerance? There was a patch a long time ago which detected
> bad ram, and would mark those memory clusters as unuseable at boot.
> However that is clearly not dynamic.
If you are referring to Badram patch by Rick van Rein
(http://rick.vanrein.org/
On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 10:58:25PM +0100, you [Alan Cox] claimed:
>
> o Free the initial ramdisk correctly
Who made this fix, or who can I contact?
I have a reproducible oops on 2.4.4ac17 (see
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=99079948404775&w=2 for
details) that seems to be re
Whenever I try to boot with root on LVM (using initrd), I get an oops. The
oops happens right after (trying to) unmount old (initrd) root. It also
happens when I run it with root=/dev/sdb (which is a plain ext2fs with no
LVM involved, other than the lvmcreate_initrd-generated initrd).
I patched 2
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 11:13:12PM +0200, you [Erik Mouw] claimed:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 11:32:51PM +0300, Ville Herva wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 09:28:48PM -0400, you [Duncan Gauld] claimed:
> > > I would supply a patch, but I don't know how to write such a thi
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 09:28:48PM -0400, you [Duncan Gauld] claimed:
>
> compiling kernel 2.4.4 on mandrake 8.
> Just checked - no mention of Celeron II in there-
>Pentium Pro/Pentium II/Celeron
> is the only line mentioning the celeron; maybe the PIII line could be changed
> to something l
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 02:56:08PM -0400, you [William Park] claimed:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 07:07:51PM -0400, Duncan Gauld wrote:
> > Hi,
> > This seems a silly question but - I have an intel celeron 800mhz CPU and thus
> > it is of the Coppermine breed. But under cpu selection when configuri
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 03:24:25PM +0200, you [Ingo Molnar] claimed:
>
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Ville Herva wrote:
>
> > Uhh, perhaps I'm stupid, but why not cache the date field and update
> > the field once a five seconds? Or even once a second?
>
> perhaps
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 10:42:29AM +0200, you [Ingo Molnar] claimed:
>
> per RFC 2616:
> .
> The Date general-header field represents the date and time at which the
> message was originated, [...]
>
> Origin servers MUST include a Date header field in all responses, [...]
> .
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 09:23:57AM -0400, you [Alexander Viro] claimed:
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
>
> > Actually this is done quite often, even on mounted fs's:
> >
> > hdparm -t /dev/hda
>
> You would need either hdparm -t /dev/hda or mounting the
> whole /dev/hda.
>
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 03:39:22AM -0700, you [Joseph Carter] claimed:
>
> A warning about agcc, I've discovered that it does not always compile code
> quite the way you expect it. This is unsurprising given it's based on
> pgcc which is known to change alignments on you in ways that sometimes
>
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 03:33:00AM -0400, you [Tom Leete] claimed:
>
> The build problen with Athlon+SMP was solved by AA's patch. I had tested a
> similar patch on UP over 2.4.0-test and previous 2.4 releases with nary a
> problem.
>
> This may be too experimental for your purposes, but FWIW I'm
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 05:52:37AM +, you [Subba Rao] claimed:
> Hi,
>
> I have seen several of these messages in my kernel log this morning. The system
What kernel version.
> responded to ping but won't allow me to login. What is VM?
Virtual memory subsystem in Linux kernel.
> What caus
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 11:34:46PM +0200, you [David Weinehall] claimed:
>
> I'll look into it. A note, however: the additional oops:es that follow
> the first one are almost never ever useful, because the system is no
> longer in a consistent state after the first one.
Apr 5 05:33:35 some kern
I wonder if there might still be a bug in 2.0.39 sys_new(l)stat. Today, one
of my trustworthy servers crashed (see details below), and it has actually
given me two slightly similar looking oopses before.
While this might be a hardware problem (I'll run memory test asap), it seems
that the oopses
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 12:16:05PM +0800, you [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] claimed:
> Hello all,
>
> Recently my ext2 partition out of space so I have made a regular file
> in the FAT32 partition and format it as ext2 partiton and mount it as
> loop device.However,occasionaly when I extract a larg
On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 12:35:19PM +0200, you [Ville Herva] claimed:
> I quickly hacked up an user space memory tester, and sure enough it
> reported an error after five
If anyone is interested in the said hack (some already mailed me that they
are), I made it available at
http://v.
On Sun, Mar 18, 2001 at 09:11:46PM +0100, you [kees] claimed:
> Hi,
>
> I tried memtest86 for 24 hours also and that didn't gave a clue. When bad
> ram was really involved I'd expected to find things like:
> failing fsck's, failing kernel compiles and such. But none of them
> the system runs perf
On Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 01:22:46PM -0500, you [Aaron Lunansky] claimed:
> Sounds like the only thing you haven't swapped out of your machine is the
> ram/cpu.
>
> It could very well be your ram (I don't suspect the cpu). If you can, try a
> different stick of ram.
Or try memtest86 (http://realit
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 08:45:07PM +0100, you [J . A . Magallon] claimed:
>
> On 03.13 Ville Herva wrote:
> >
> > Below is one response to a similar question from the l-k archive:
> >
> > From: David Balazic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Thu, 13 Jan 20
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 04:23:41PM +0100, you [J . A . Magallon] claimed:
> Hi,
>
> Recently I read the BeOS www page, and answerd a question in other mailing
> list. Both things have remind me of a pretty file system: 'cdfs'.
>
> Anybody knows if there is a port of 'cdfs' (Audio CD File System
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:02:45PM -0500, you [Richard B. Johnson] claimed:
>
> Script started on Mon Feb 26 12:54:20 2001
> # gcc -o xxx bug.c
> # ./xxx
> Correct output: 5 2
> GCC output: 5 2
> # gcc --version
> egcs-2.91.66
> # gcc -O2 -o xxx bug.c
> # ./xxx
> Correct output: 5 2
> GCC output
by luck
> > but thats it. This will change as and when the new loop patches go
> > in. Until then if you need loop use 2.2
>
> I see. Thank you. I can live without it until then.
>
> Btw, I applied Jens Axboe's loop-3 patch as suggested by Ville Herva.
> It a
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 08:25:58AM -, you [Ole André Vadla Ravnås ] claimed:
> I don't know if this is broken in 2.4.1-ac17 and
> 2.4.2-pre4, but, what happens when mounting a filesystem
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 02:11:55PM +0200, you [Ville Herva] claimed:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 01:22:31PM +0200, you [Ville Herva] claimed:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 06:08:12AM -0500, you [Doug Ledford] claimed:
> > >
> > > There was a new aic7xxx driver (versio
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 01:22:31PM +0200, you [Ville Herva] claimed:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 06:08:12AM -0500, you [Doug Ledford] claimed:
> >
> > There was a new aic7xxx driver (version 5.2.3) that went into the 2.4.1ac
> > kernel series around 2.4.1-ac7. I would be
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 06:08:12AM -0500, you [Doug Ledford] claimed:
>
> There was a new aic7xxx driver (version 5.2.3) that went into the 2.4.1ac
> kernel series around 2.4.1-ac7. I would be curious to know if it worked on
> your machine properly.
Ok. Will try.
Are there any changes that co
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 06:16:01PM +0200, you [Ville Herva] claimed:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 07:53:55AM -0500, you [Doug Ledford] claimed:
> > Ville Herva wrote:
> > >
> > > It looks like ac6 (which I believe includes the patch you posted) is
> > > still a
On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 03:12:29PM +0100, you [Gábor Lénárt] claimed:
>
> xmms-avi uses DLL loader from wine too?
AFAIK: yes.
> I mean does it use windows codecs
> to play AVIs? In this case, the dll loader set up some LDT settings and
> this casue that message.
So this is a harmless message
On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 10:48:23AM -0800, you [Simon Kirby] claimed:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 06:22:26PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > LDT allocated for cloned task!
> > >
> > > I'm seeing this message come up fairly often while running vanilla
> > > 2.4.2-pre3 on my dual Celeron system. I do
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 03:45:49PM +0200, you [Ville Herva] claimed:
>
> Ok, then I just fumbled with my ftp client - I notice the 2.4.2-pre1 dir.
Should've been'I didn't notice'
Looks like I can't get anything right, I already rue
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 02:37:51PM +0100, you [Martin Josefsson] claimed:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Ville Herva wrote:
>
> 2.4.2-pre1/loop-4.bz2 is the newest one, but I think I saw that there's
> still a bug in it which can hang the kernel.
> I think he said that he was goi
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 01:54:46AM -0800, you [Colonel] claimed:
>
> >mount -o loop=/dev/loop1 net.i /var/mnt/image/
>
> ends up in an uninterruptable sleep state (system cannot umount /
> during shutdown).
>
> How do I track this down?
This is becoming a FAQ.
Go to
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 09:02:19PM +0100, you [Pavel Machek] claimed:
> Hi!
>
> > I am experiencing a problem with both 2.4.0 and 2.4.1. The problem is that
> > at seemingly random times the console locks up. After the lockup I can no
> > longer type and the mouse is frozen. As far as I can tell,
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 07:53:55AM -0500, you [Doug Ledford] claimed:
> Ville Herva wrote:
> >
> > It looks like ac6 (which I believe includes the patch you posted) is
> > still a no-go with 7892. The boot halts and it just prints this once a
> > second:
> >
>
502 480 455 947
cat /proc/scsi/scsi
Attached devices:
Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 03 Lun: 00
Vendor: QUANTUM Model: ATLAS 10K 18WLS Rev: UCHK
Type: Direct-AccessANSI SCSI revision: 03
--
Ville Herva[EMAIL PROTECTED] +358-50-5164
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 08:56:12PM -, you [mirabilos] claimed:
> From: "Torrey Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Should someone submit a patch to copy the .config to a standard location as
> > part of "make install" or "make modules_install"? If included in the
> > official sources, that good e
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 08:37:38AM +0100, you [Hans Eric Sandström] claimed:
> BP6/Dual Cel 400 (the 2.0 load is setiathome)
> --
> [root@zekeserv /root]# uptime
> 8:28am up 20 days, 13:04, 2 users, load average: 2.00, 2.00, 2.00
> [root@zekeserv /root]# uname -a
> Linux zekeserv 2.4.0 #2 SMP
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 09:00:26AM -0500, you [James Lewis Nance] claimed:
>
> ( mrproper == Mr. Proper )
>
> I saw a post from Linus once about this. It is Finnish for "Mr. Clean".
Just to be sure: 'proper' does not mean anything in Finnish (nor Swedish
for that matter AFAIK) it just the Europ
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 12:45:13AM -0800, you [Andre Hedrick] claimed:
>
> > But it works on all ATA disks? Does it work for SCSI as well?
>
> The KIOBUFS version may, but not the taskfile version.
Ok.
> > I think it would be cool if you'd make it available (on linux-ide.org?),
> > so that pe
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 05:14:02PM -0800, you [Andre Hedrick] claimed:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Tim Fletcher wrote:
>
> > > Well that is useless test them because you can not test things completely.
> >
> > I ment that if the partiton has no persient data on it then the test can
> > be run (the te
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 01:47:39PM +0100, you [Andre Tomt] claimed:
> > > This issue is fixed in 2.2.18 AFAIK (never seen it since).
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> > It's fixed 2.2.19pre2 (which includes the Andrea Arcangeli's vm-global-7
> > patch that (among other things) fixes this.)
>
> I stand correcte
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 12:50:07PM +0100, you [Andre Tomt] claimed:
> > of the fuzz
> > I have relating to the VM: do_try_to_free_pages issue.
>
>
>
> > About once a week I get the 'VM: do_try_to_free_pages ...' error and
> > eventually get a complete system lockup. And just this morning it
> >
On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 01:03:00PM +0100, you [Matthias Andree] claimed:
> Last night, one of your production machines got wedged, I caught a lot
> of kernel: VM: do_try_to_free_pages failed for ... for a whole range of
> processes, among them ypbind, klogd, syslogd, xntpd, cron, nscd, X,
> How ca
Are these noteworthy: "LDT allocated for cloned task" (2.2.18pre19 SMP)? I
put an additional printk there to see which pid it is, and it is xmms.
The usage count mm->count is 3.
-- v --
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 01:38:01AM +0100, you [Andrea Arcangeli] claimed:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 01:44:18PM +0200, Ville Herva wrote:
> > try Andrea's vm-global-7 now. It seems to include the bits Rik posted, or
>
> It doesn't include the bits Rik posted because the
On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 12:57:59PM +, you [Alan Cox] claimed:
> > I wasn't the one who used cdrom, so it is possible, that the person in
> > question had been able to eject the cd without unmounting it first. I'll
> > check if the door locking on that device works.
>
> Also rpm -e magicdev --
On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 12:45:49PM +, you [Alan Cox] claimed:
> > BTW: What are those seemingly harmless "VFS: busy inodes on changed
> > media." messages I'm getting tons of?
>
> They are not harmless. Someone forcibly unmounted a disk of some sort
> from a device that was in use, and while
This is a dual Pro200. Running mainly oracle. The kernel is a 2.2.18pre19
+ide-patch. The oops was unfortunately mangled by sysklogd, but I did try
to reconstruct it. Sysklogd apparently used the wrong System.map (the
redhat default one I had accidentally left in /boot). I tried to map the
address
On Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 10:04:02PM -0200, you [Rik van Riel] said:
> Hi Alan,
>
> here's a fix for a blindingly stupid bug that's been in
> 2.2 for ages (and which I've warned you about a few times
> in the last 6 months, and which I've even sent some patches
> for).
>
> This patch should make 2
from this post, please ask.
I also want to thank Kai Mäkisara for his forbearing efforts with this
problems -- even though a solution is yet to be found.
--
Ville Herva[EMAIL PROTECTED]+358-50-5164500
Viasys Oy Pohjantie 3 FIN-02100 Espoo +358-9-4301460
On Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 09:27:36AM -0800, you [Andre Hedrick] said:
>
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2000, Ville Herva
I have a dual Ppro200 with 440FX chipset and an IBM 30GB ide disk. The
kernel is 2.2.18pre18 with no additional patches. DMA appears not to work
with this combination.
lspci:
00:00.0 Host bridge: Intel Corporation 440FX - 82441FX PMC [Natoma] (rev 02)
00:07.0 ISA bridge: Intel Corporation 82371S
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 02:23:56PM +0800, you [Andrey Savochkin] claimed:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 07:35:08PM +0300, Ville Herva wrote:
> > Markus Pfeiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Oct 26 11:24:13 ns29 kernel: eth0: card rep
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 11:29:08AM -0200, you [Marcelo Tosatti] claimed:
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Neale Banks wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, octave klaba wrote:
> >
> > > > > Oct 26 16:38:01 ns29 kernel: eth0: card reports no resources.
> > > > let me guess: intel eepro100 or similar??
>
Markus Pfeiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Oct 26 11:24:13 ns29 kernel: eth0: card reports no resources.
> > Oct 26 11:24:15 ns29 kernel: eth0: card reports no resources.
> > Oct 26 12:22:21 ns29 kernel: eth0: card reports no resources.
> > Oct 26 16:16:59 ns29 kernel: eth0: card reports no
On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 02:52:56PM +0200, you [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] claimed:
>
> Does also include the build number (i.e. the first part of
> UTS_VERSION) ? Is it resilient to patches where, by accident,
> EXTRAVERSION or such hasn't been incremented ? Will people always
Speaking of patches, it wo
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 10:36:09AM -0500, you [Timur Tabi] claimed:
> ** Reply to message from Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 29 Aug 2000
> 18:27:20 -0700
>
>
> > +CONFIG_PROC_CONFIG
> > + Say Y here if you want a copy of your current kernel configuration
> > + saved in the kernel
81 matches
Mail list logo
