Hi!
> > >> I shouldn't have to upgrade my BIOS to work with a new kernel any more
> > >> than I should have to upgrade my browser.
> > >
> > >We don't agree there, as you are not talking about a stable kernel series.
> >
> > Ah, so you're planning on submitting these patches for 2.7 then? 2.6
>
Hi!
I shouldn't have to upgrade my BIOS to work with a new kernel any more
than I should have to upgrade my browser.
We don't agree there, as you are not talking about a stable kernel series.
Ah, so you're planning on submitting these patches for 2.7 then? 2.6
is perpetually
On 5/23/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2007, Ray Lee wrote:
> Which is the crux of my problem with your statement. I feel we
> shouldn't give the wrong idea to those authors. They need to know that
> the expectation is that 2.6.x is a stable series, and
On Wed, 23 May 2007, Ray Lee wrote:
> The problem is when the maintainers/submitters get the wrong
> impression, that 2.6.x.y is there to clean up the mess they made. The
Now, that I agree with completely.
> Which is the crux of my problem with your statement. I feel we
> shouldn't give the
On 5/23/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Ray Lee wrote:
> On 5/22/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >We don't agree there, as you are not talking about a stable kernel series.
>
> Ah, so you're planning on submitting these
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 10:56:27PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 May 2007 19:48, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 02:13:30PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > On Wed, 23 May 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > While I agree with that, it would
On Wednesday, 23 May 2007 19:48, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 02:13:30PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 May 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > While I agree with that, it would really be helpful if you tested the
> > > latest -rc
> > > kernel and saw
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 02:13:30PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > While I agree with that, it would really be helpful if you tested the
> > latest -rc
> > kernel and saw if the bug was present in there.
> >
> > If the bug is not
On Wed, 23 May 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> While I agree with that, it would really be helpful if you tested the latest
> -rc
> kernel and saw if the bug was present in there.
>
> If the bug is not present in the latest -rc, it'll be possible to identify the
> patch that causes it to appear
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Ray Lee wrote:
> On 5/22/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I shouldn't have to upgrade my BIOS to work with a new kernel any more
> >> than I should have to upgrade my browser.
> >
> >We don't agree there, as you are not talking about a stable
On Wednesday, 23 May 2007 03:48, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 09:19:43PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 08:03:49PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 21 May 2007,
On Wednesday, 23 May 2007 03:48, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 09:19:43PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 08:03:49PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2007, Matt Mackall
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Ray Lee wrote:
On 5/22/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I shouldn't have to upgrade my BIOS to work with a new kernel any more
than I should have to upgrade my browser.
We don't agree there, as you are not talking about a stable kernel series.
On Wed, 23 May 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
While I agree with that, it would really be helpful if you tested the latest
-rc
kernel and saw if the bug was present in there.
If the bug is not present in the latest -rc, it'll be possible to identify the
patch that causes it to appear in
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 02:13:30PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
While I agree with that, it would really be helpful if you tested the
latest -rc
kernel and saw if the bug was present in there.
If the bug is not present in the
On Wednesday, 23 May 2007 19:48, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 02:13:30PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
While I agree with that, it would really be helpful if you tested the
latest -rc
kernel and saw if the bug
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 10:56:27PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 May 2007 19:48, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 02:13:30PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
While I agree with that, it would really be
On 5/23/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Ray Lee wrote:
On 5/22/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We don't agree there, as you are not talking about a stable kernel series.
Ah, so you're planning on submitting these patches
On Wed, 23 May 2007, Ray Lee wrote:
The problem is when the maintainers/submitters get the wrong
impression, that 2.6.x.y is there to clean up the mess they made. The
Now, that I agree with completely.
Which is the crux of my problem with your statement. I feel we
shouldn't give the wrong
On 5/23/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2007, Ray Lee wrote:
Which is the crux of my problem with your statement. I feel we
shouldn't give the wrong idea to those authors. They need to know that
the expectation is that 2.6.x is a stable series, and
On 5/22/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I shouldn't have to upgrade my BIOS to work with a new kernel any more
> than I should have to upgrade my browser.
We don't agree there, as you are not talking about a stable kernel series.
Ah, so you're planning on
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
> Whether the 'bug' is in the firmware or the kernel, it is the kernel
> that has regressed. Suspend worked fine for 2+ years before this.
That means something, but not that much. The kernel could have been doing
broken things for two years in ACPI that
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 09:19:43PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 08:03:49PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > On Mon, 21 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > > BIOS Information
> > > > Vendor:
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 08:03:49PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > BIOS Information
> > > Vendor: IBM
> > > Version: 1RETDHWW (3.13 )
> > > Release Date: 10/29/2004
> > >
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 08:03:49PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > BIOS Information
> > Vendor: IBM
> > Version: 1RETDHWW (3.13 )
> > Release Date: 10/29/2004
> >
> > No sign of any EC version in the output.
>
>
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 08:03:49PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
BIOS Information
Vendor: IBM
Version: 1RETDHWW (3.13 )
Release Date: 10/29/2004
No sign of any EC version in the output.
This is a buggy,
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 08:03:49PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
BIOS Information
Vendor: IBM
Version: 1RETDHWW (3.13 )
Release Date: 10/29/2004
No sign of
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 09:19:43PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 08:03:49PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
BIOS Information
Vendor: IBM
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
Whether the 'bug' is in the firmware or the kernel, it is the kernel
that has regressed. Suspend worked fine for 2+ years before this.
That means something, but not that much. The kernel could have been doing
broken things for two years in ACPI that
On 5/22/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I shouldn't have to upgrade my BIOS to work with a new kernel any more
than I should have to upgrade my browser.
We don't agree there, as you are not talking about a stable kernel series.
Ah, so you're planning on submitting
On Mon, 21 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
> BIOS Information
> Vendor: IBM
> Version: 1RETDHWW (3.13 )
> Release Date: 10/29/2004
>
> No sign of any EC version in the output.
This is a buggy, ancient version of the BIOS, which probably means you have
an old and slightly
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 12:52:59AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > On Sat, 19 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > > usually does, then go black and the machine will become totally
> > > > unresponsive, even to holding down the power button for 30+ seconds.
> > >
> > > Now, that
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 12:52:59AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
usually does, then go black and the machine will become totally
unresponsive, even to holding down the power button for 30+ seconds.
Now, that means either the
On Mon, 21 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
BIOS Information
Vendor: IBM
Version: 1RETDHWW (3.13 )
Release Date: 10/29/2004
No sign of any EC version in the output.
This is a buggy, ancient version of the BIOS, which probably means you have
an old and slightly buggy EC
On Sat, 19 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 05:45:04PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > usually does, then go black and the machine will become totally
> > > unresponsive, even to holding down the power button for
On Sunday, 20 May 2007 00:40, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 08:24:16PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Saturday, 19 May 2007 18:57, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > Starting with 2.6.21-mm2, I'm seeing occassional failures to resume
> > > from suspend-to-ram on my
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 08:24:16PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Saturday, 19 May 2007 18:57, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > Starting with 2.6.21-mm2, I'm seeing occassional failures to resume
> > from suspend-to-ram on my Thinkpad R51. The screen will flash as it
> > usually does, then
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 05:45:04PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > usually does, then go black and the machine will become totally
> > unresponsive, even to holding down the power button for 30+ seconds.
>
> Now, that means either the BIOS
On Sat, 19 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
> usually does, then go black and the machine will become totally
> unresponsive, even to holding down the power button for 30+ seconds.
Now, that means either the BIOS or EC have been thrown out of whack,
otherwise one of the two would have
Hi,
On Saturday, 19 May 2007 18:57, Matt Mackall wrote:
> Starting with 2.6.21-mm2, I'm seeing occassional failures to resume
> from suspend-to-ram on my Thinkpad R51. The screen will flash as it
> usually does, then go black and the machine will become totally
> unresponsive, even to holding
Starting with 2.6.21-mm2, I'm seeing occassional failures to resume
from suspend-to-ram on my Thinkpad R51. The screen will flash as it
usually does, then go black and the machine will become totally
unresponsive, even to holding down the power button for 30+ seconds.
But the hard drive light will
Starting with 2.6.21-mm2, I'm seeing occassional failures to resume
from suspend-to-ram on my Thinkpad R51. The screen will flash as it
usually does, then go black and the machine will become totally
unresponsive, even to holding down the power button for 30+ seconds.
But the hard drive light will
Hi,
On Saturday, 19 May 2007 18:57, Matt Mackall wrote:
Starting with 2.6.21-mm2, I'm seeing occassional failures to resume
from suspend-to-ram on my Thinkpad R51. The screen will flash as it
usually does, then go black and the machine will become totally
unresponsive, even to holding down
On Sat, 19 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
usually does, then go black and the machine will become totally
unresponsive, even to holding down the power button for 30+ seconds.
Now, that means either the BIOS or EC have been thrown out of whack,
otherwise one of the two would have
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 05:45:04PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
usually does, then go black and the machine will become totally
unresponsive, even to holding down the power button for 30+ seconds.
Now, that means either the BIOS or EC
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 08:24:16PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Hi,
On Saturday, 19 May 2007 18:57, Matt Mackall wrote:
Starting with 2.6.21-mm2, I'm seeing occassional failures to resume
from suspend-to-ram on my Thinkpad R51. The screen will flash as it
usually does, then go black
On Sunday, 20 May 2007 00:40, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 08:24:16PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Hi,
On Saturday, 19 May 2007 18:57, Matt Mackall wrote:
Starting with 2.6.21-mm2, I'm seeing occassional failures to resume
from suspend-to-ram on my Thinkpad R51. The
On Sat, 19 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 05:45:04PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
usually does, then go black and the machine will become totally
unresponsive, even to holding down the power button for 30+
48 matches
Mail list logo
