On Sul, 2005-03-06 at 23:06, Alan Cox wrote:
> Cool. Once you've done so make sure there are also no bk snapshots and
That should have read "non bk" snapshots before Larry goes boom 8)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PR
On Gwe, 2005-03-04 at 16:27, Greg KH wrote:
> Ok, based on consensus, I've applied this one too.
>
> Yes, we will get a bk-stable-commits tree up and running, still working
> out the infrastructure...
Cool. Once you've done so make sure there are also no bk snapshots and
I'll push you some of the
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 10:38:10AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > Ok, based on consensus, I've applied this one too.
>
> Btw, I don't think your process works. You never really gave people the
> time to object. So for that reason you applied the fi
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Greg KH wrote:
>
> Ok, based on consensus, I've applied this one too.
Btw, I don't think your process works. You never really gave people the
time to object. So for that reason you applied the first trivial raid6
thing, and it turned out to be wrong.
I think the patches nee
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 10:23:35PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> From: Dmitry Torokhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Some ACPI-related changes were recently made to i8042 discovery for ia64.
> Unfortunately this broke a significant number of Dell laptops due to their
> having incorrect BIOS tables.
>
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
> Greg KH wrote:
[...]
> >An alias would probably be easier, unless you think everything sent
> >there should be archived?
>
> I do. But I don't have a strong opinion on the subject.
A bk-commit mailing-list would be nice.
--
Ueimor
-
To unsubscribe from this l
Andrew Morton wrote:
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The boot param is rather lame, IMO, since it affects a -bunch- of
laptops. But whatever...
My main desktop (a recent Dell), running 2.6.11-rc4-mm1 needs i8042.nopnp=1
(sic. It got renamed) so I can type stuff too. (rerekicks self). I
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The boot param is rather lame, IMO, since it affects a -bunch- of
> laptops. But whatever...
My main desktop (a recent Dell), running 2.6.11-rc4-mm1 needs i8042.nopnp=1
(sic. It got renamed) so I can type stuff too. (rerekicks self). I expect
this ma
Chris Wright wrote:
IMO, we have to rely on Dmitry's judgement. Is it critical (i.e. broke
laptops how)? Can it be worked around with the i8042.noacpi boot param?
If so, I don't think it fits the bill as critical.
If it was critical for 2.6.11, I would think it's critical for 2.6.11.1.
One would
* Andrew Morton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Chris Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > And it's a temp-fix - it'll be addressed by other means in 2.6.12.
> > >
> > > What do we do?
> >
> > IMO, we have to rely on Dmitry's judgement. Is it critical (i.e. broke
> > laptops how)? Can i
Chris Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > And it's a temp-fix - it'll be addressed by other means in 2.6.12.
> >
> > What do we do?
>
> IMO, we have to rely on Dmitry's judgement. Is it critical (i.e. broke
> laptops how)? Can it be worked around with the i8042.noacpi boot param?
> If
* Andrew Morton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Chris Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > * Jeff Garzik ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > >Chris Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >>Olof's patch is in the linux-release tree, so this brings up a point
> > > >>r
Andrew Morton wrote:
That works as long as I don't have non-linux_release patches which depend
upon earlier fixes. If that happens I have to wait until linux-release
merges up.
Hopefully linux-release pulls, and linux-release releases, will happen
fairly quickly. Otherwise its value diminishes.
Chris Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Jeff Garzik ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >Chris Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>Olof's patch is in the linux-release tree, so this brings up a point
> > >>regarding merging. If the quick fix is to be replaced by
* Jeff Garzik ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> >Chris Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Olof's patch is in the linux-release tree, so this brings up a point
> >>regarding merging. If the quick fix is to be replaced by a better fix
> >>later (as in this case) there's some roo
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Neither solution is acceptable, really. I suspect the idea of pulling
> > linux-release into mainline won't work very well, and that making it a
> > backport tree would be more practical.
>
> Maybe you're right, but I tend to think that "quick, get
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Olof's patch is in the linux-release tree, so this brings up a point
> > regarding merging. If the quick fix is to be replaced by a better fix
> > later (as in this case) there's some room for merge conflict. Does this
> > pose a problem for either
Andrew Morton wrote:
Chris Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Olof Johansson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 05:59:51PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
This patch doesn't seem right - current 2.6.11 has:
return cur_cpu_spec->cpu_features & CPU_FTR_ALTIVEC;
The patch was a
Chris Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Olof Johansson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 05:59:51PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > This patch doesn't seem right - current 2.6.11 has:
> > >
> > > return cur_cpu_spec->cpu_features & CPU_FTR_ALTIVEC;
Chris Wright wrote:
* Olof Johansson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 05:59:51PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
This patch doesn't seem right - current 2.6.11 has:
return cur_cpu_spec->cpu_features & CPU_FTR_ALTIVEC;
The patch was against what Greg had already pushed into
* Olof Johansson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 05:59:51PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > This patch doesn't seem right - current 2.6.11 has:
> >
> > return cur_cpu_spec->cpu_features & CPU_FTR_ALTIVEC;
>
> The patch was against what Greg had already pushed
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 01:26:36PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Rene Rebe wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >
> >--- linux-2.6.11/drivers/md/raid6altivec.uc.vanilla2005-03-02
> >16:44:56.407107752 +0100
> >+++ linux-2.6.11/drivers/md/raid6altivec.uc2005-03-02
> >16:45:22.424152560 +0100
> >@@ -108,7 +10
Hi,
Greg KH wrote:
Except the patch is malformed, and even after light editing, does not
apply to the 2.6.11 kernel :(
Sorry - to match linux-kernel style I pasted it from gvim into
thunderbird to make kernel folks happy. Here you find the patch as it
applies to 2.6.11 attached.
Yours,
--
René R
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 05:59:51PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> This patch doesn't seem right - current 2.6.11 has:
>
> return cur_cpu_spec->cpu_features & CPU_FTR_ALTIVEC;
The patch was against what Greg had already pushed into the
linux-release.bkbits.net 2.6.11 tree, i.e. not wha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Olof Johansson) wrote:
>
> Here's a patch that will work for both PPC and PPC64. The proper way to
> fix this in mainline is to merge -mm's cpu_has_feature patch, but for
> the stable 2.6.11-series, this much less intrusive (i.e. just the pure
> bugfix, not the cleanup part).
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 04:55:42PM -0600, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 09:30:22AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > > I nominate this as a candidate for linux-2.6.11 release branch. :)
> >
> > No. Unfortunately if you fix ppc64 here you will break ppc, and vice
> > versa. Yes,
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 02:45:15PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 09:30:22AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > Jeff Garzik writes:
> > > Rene Rebe wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- linux-2.6.11/drivers/md/raid6altivec.uc.vanilla2005-03-02
> > > > 16:44:56
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 09:30:22AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > I nominate this as a candidate for linux-2.6.11 release branch. :)
>
> No. Unfortunately if you fix ppc64 here you will break ppc, and vice
> versa. Yes, we are going to reconcile the cur_cpu_spec definitions
> between ppc and
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 09:30:22AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Jeff Garzik writes:
> > Rene Rebe wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >
> > > --- linux-2.6.11/drivers/md/raid6altivec.uc.vanilla2005-03-02
> > > 16:44:56.407107752 +0100
> > > +++ linux-2.6.11/drivers/md/raid6altivec.uc2005-03-02
Jeff Garzik writes:
> Rene Rebe wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > --- linux-2.6.11/drivers/md/raid6altivec.uc.vanilla2005-03-02
> > 16:44:56.407107752 +0100
> > +++ linux-2.6.11/drivers/md/raid6altivec.uc2005-03-02
> > 16:45:22.424152560 +0100
> > @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@
> > int raid6_have_altive
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 12:07:18PM -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
> * Jeff Garzik ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > Two procedural suggestions...
> >
> > >Ok, I've fixed up the patch and applied it to a local tree that I've set
> > >up to catch these things (it will live at
> > >b
Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 12:07:18PM -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
Don't see why not, we were thinking of making it just an alias at
kernel.org.
An alias would probably be easier, unless you think everything sent
there should be archived?
I do. But I don't have a strong opinion on the
* Jeff Garzik ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
>
> Two procedural suggestions...
>
> >Ok, I've fixed up the patch and applied it to a local tree that I've set
> >up to catch these things (it will live at
> >bk://kernel.bkbits.net:gregkh/linux-2.6.11.y until Chris Wright and I
> >set up
Greg KH wrote:
Two procedural suggestions...
Ok, I've fixed up the patch and applied it to a local tree that I've set
up to catch these things (it will live at
bk://kernel.bkbits.net:gregkh/linux-2.6.11.y until Chris Wright and I
set up how we are going to handle all of this.)
My suggestion would
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 01:26:36PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Rene Rebe wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >
> >--- linux-2.6.11/drivers/md/raid6altivec.uc.vanilla2005-03-02
> >16:44:56.407107752 +0100
> >+++ linux-2.6.11/drivers/md/raid6altivec.uc2005-03-02
> >16:45:22.424152560 +0100
> >@@ -108,7 +10
Rene Rebe wrote:
Hi,
--- linux-2.6.11/drivers/md/raid6altivec.uc.vanilla2005-03-02
16:44:56.407107752 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.11/drivers/md/raid6altivec.uc2005-03-02
16:45:22.424152560 +0100
@@ -108,7 +108,7 @@
int raid6_have_altivec(void)
{
/* This assumes either all CPUs have Altivec
Hi,
--- linux-2.6.11/drivers/md/raid6altivec.uc.vanilla 2005-03-02
16:44:56.407107752 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.11/drivers/md/raid6altivec.uc 2005-03-02
16:45:22.424152560 +0100
@@ -108,7 +108,7 @@
int raid6_have_altivec(void)
{
/* This assumes either all CPUs have Altivec or none does */
- return
37 matches
Mail list logo
