-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kevin Winchester wrote:
> However, I got around the problem by making the code change manually -
> and my network connection is now working. Looking at the code being
> bypassed:
>
> if (pE.cap[i] || pP.cap[i] || pP.cap[i])
>
> looks somewhat we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Morgan wrote:
> Kevin,
>
> Can you try this quick hack?
>
> diff --git a/kernel/capability.c b/kernel/capability.c
> index e57d1aa..4088610 100644
> --- a/kernel/capability.c
> +++ b/kernel/capability.c
> @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ out:
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kevin Winchester wrote:
> Looking at the code being bypassed:
>
> if (pE.cap[i] || pP.cap[i] || pP.cap[i])
>
> looks somewhat weird as it is testing the same condition twice. Should
> it have been:
>
> if (pE.cap[i] || pP.cap[i] || pI.cap[i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Morgan wrote:
> Kevin,
>
> Can you try this quick hack?
>
> diff --git a/kernel/capability.c b/kernel/capability.c
> index e57d1aa..4088610 100644
> --- a/kernel/capability.c
> +++ b/kernel/capability.c
> @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ out:
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kevin,
Can you try this quick hack?
diff --git a/kernel/capability.c b/kernel/capability.c
index e57d1aa..4088610 100644
- --- a/kernel/capability.c
+++ b/kernel/capability.c
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ out:
kdata[i].permitted = pP.ca
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 09:16:58PM -0800, Andrew Morgan wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> This warning is just saying that you might want to reconsider
> recompiling your dhclient with a newer libcap - which has native support
> for 64-bit capabilities. This is
On November 17, 2007 01:16:58 am Andrew Morgan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This warning is just saying that you might want to reconsider
> recompiling your dhclient with a newer libcap - which has native support
> for 64-bit capabilities. This is supposed to be informative, and not be
> associated with any pa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
This warning is just saying that you might want to reconsider
recompiling your dhclient with a newer libcap - which has native support
for 64-bit capabilities. This is supposed to be informative, and not be
associated with any particular error.
-
unsubscribe linux-kernel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:01:32 -0400
Kevin Winchester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On November 15, 2007 08:44:41 pm Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:28:29 -0400
> >
> > Kevin Winchester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On November 15, 2007 06:02:09 am Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>
> > > I
On November 15, 2007 08:44:41 pm Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:28:29 -0400
>
> Kevin Winchester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On November 15, 2007 06:02:09 am Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > I see this as well - the computer boots fine but no network. The only
> > clues in the dmesg ar
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:28:29 -0400
Kevin Winchester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On November 15, 2007 06:02:09 am Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > When testing some of the later 2.6.24-rc2-mm1+hotfix combinations on three
> > of our test systems one job from each batch (1/4) failed. In each case the
> >
On November 15, 2007 06:02:09 am Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> When testing some of the later 2.6.24-rc2-mm1+hotfix combinations on three
> of our test systems one job from each batch (1/4) failed. In each case the
> machine appears to have booted normally all the way to a login: prompt.
> However in th
When testing some of the later 2.6.24-rc2-mm1+hotfix combinations on three
of our test systems one job from each batch (1/4) failed. In each case the
machine appears to have booted normally all the way to a login: prompt.
However in the failed boots the networking though apparently initialised
com
14 matches
Mail list logo
