I can confirm that reverting commit
7639e962234c76031d1ddf436def7fd9602be560 fixes the problem. Also,
there seem to be plenty of other people reporting the same boot
locking:
http://groups.google.com/group/fa.linux.kernel/msg/cc0453677be44a9e
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=245313
I can confirm that reverting commit
7639e962234c76031d1ddf436def7fd9602be560 fixes the problem. Also,
there seem to be plenty of other people reporting the same boot
locking:
http://groups.google.com/group/fa.linux.kernel/msg/cc0453677be44a9e
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=245313
I'm honestly not sure how to try what you suggested to try, since I'm
nothing even remotely close to a kernel geek and it was over my head.
However, I'd gladly test anything that you think would be worth
testing, if you would please put it in way that I could understand,
such as "change line
>Considering where it failed and that 2.6.20.3 worked, I would be
>extremely surprised if this wasn't one more report of
>adjust-legacy-ide-resource-setting.patch breaking booting (and we
>already have confirmed reports for this)...
>
>But AFAIK we still don't understand how this patch managed
Considering where it failed and that 2.6.20.3 worked, I would be
extremely surprised if this wasn't one more report of
adjust-legacy-ide-resource-setting.patch breaking booting (and we
already have confirmed reports for this)...
But AFAIK we still don't understand how this patch managed to
I'm honestly not sure how to try what you suggested to try, since I'm
nothing even remotely close to a kernel geek and it was over my head.
However, I'd gladly test anything that you think would be worth
testing, if you would please put it in way that I could understand,
such as change line 'foo'
On Saturday 21 April 2007 06:54, Marcos Pinto wrote:
> It took me several hours, but I just got done combing things over with
> bisect as Greg requested. This is what git spit out as the problem
> patch in the end:
>
> 7639e962234c76031d1ddf436def7fd9602be560 is first bad commit
> commit
On Saturday 21 April 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 10:34:20PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 11:30:59PM -0500, Marcos Pinto wrote:
> > > Yes, I just tried 2.6.20.3 with ACPI enabled and it booted perfectly.
> > > I'm hoping this means you know what's
It took me several hours, but I just got done combing things over with
bisect as Greg requested. This is what git spit out as the problem
patch in the end:
7639e962234c76031d1ddf436def7fd9602be560 is first bad commit
commit 7639e962234c76031d1ddf436def7fd9602be560
Author: Jan Beulich <[EMAIL
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 10:34:20PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 11:30:59PM -0500, Marcos Pinto wrote:
> > Yes, I just tried 2.6.20.3 with ACPI enabled and it booted perfectly.
> > I'm hoping this means you know what's wrong? :-)
>
> Can you do a 'git bisect' on the versions
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 10:34:20PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 11:30:59PM -0500, Marcos Pinto wrote:
Yes, I just tried 2.6.20.3 with ACPI enabled and it booted perfectly.
I'm hoping this means you know what's wrong? :-)
Can you do a 'git bisect' on the versions between
It took me several hours, but I just got done combing things over with
bisect as Greg requested. This is what git spit out as the problem
patch in the end:
7639e962234c76031d1ddf436def7fd9602be560 is first bad commit
commit 7639e962234c76031d1ddf436def7fd9602be560
Author: Jan Beulich [EMAIL
On Saturday 21 April 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 10:34:20PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 11:30:59PM -0500, Marcos Pinto wrote:
Yes, I just tried 2.6.20.3 with ACPI enabled and it booted perfectly.
I'm hoping this means you know what's wrong? :-)
On Saturday 21 April 2007 06:54, Marcos Pinto wrote:
It took me several hours, but I just got done combing things over with
bisect as Greg requested. This is what git spit out as the problem
patch in the end:
7639e962234c76031d1ddf436def7fd9602be560 is first bad commit
commit
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 11:30:59PM -0500, Marcos Pinto wrote:
> Yes, I just tried 2.6.20.3 with ACPI enabled and it booted perfectly.
> I'm hoping this means you know what's wrong? :-)
Can you do a 'git bisect' on the versions between 2.6.20.3 and 2.6.20.7
to try to find the problem patch?
Yes, I just tried 2.6.20.3 with ACPI enabled and it booted perfectly.
I'm hoping this means you know what's wrong? :-)
Thanks again,
Marcos
On 4/20/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 07:47:13PM -0500, Marcos Pinto wrote:
> I'm not subscribed, so please
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 07:47:13PM -0500, Marcos Pinto wrote:
> I'm not subscribed, so please personally CC me any answers/comments.
> Thank you.
>
> While booting, (AMD64 Turion x2) 2.6.20.7 kernel locks up hard. The
> last kernel that I tried, 2.6.18.8, worked perfectly without any
> trickery.
I'm not subscribed, so please personally CC me any answers/comments.
Thank you.
While booting, (AMD64 Turion x2) 2.6.20.7 kernel locks up hard. The
last kernel that I tried, 2.6.18.8, worked perfectly without any
trickery. 2.6.20.7 only boots up with "acpi=off" being added to the
kernel line.
I'm not subscribed, so please personally CC me any answers/comments.
Thank you.
While booting, (AMD64 Turion x2) 2.6.20.7 kernel locks up hard. The
last kernel that I tried, 2.6.18.8, worked perfectly without any
trickery. 2.6.20.7 only boots up with acpi=off being added to the
kernel line.
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 07:47:13PM -0500, Marcos Pinto wrote:
I'm not subscribed, so please personally CC me any answers/comments.
Thank you.
While booting, (AMD64 Turion x2) 2.6.20.7 kernel locks up hard. The
last kernel that I tried, 2.6.18.8, worked perfectly without any
trickery.
Yes, I just tried 2.6.20.3 with ACPI enabled and it booted perfectly.
I'm hoping this means you know what's wrong? :-)
Thanks again,
Marcos
On 4/20/07, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 07:47:13PM -0500, Marcos Pinto wrote:
I'm not subscribed, so please personally
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 11:30:59PM -0500, Marcos Pinto wrote:
Yes, I just tried 2.6.20.3 with ACPI enabled and it booted perfectly.
I'm hoping this means you know what's wrong? :-)
Can you do a 'git bisect' on the versions between 2.6.20.3 and 2.6.20.7
to try to find the problem patch?
22 matches
Mail list logo
