On Sunday 20 January 2008 10:49:45 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 10:24:47AM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > On Sunday 20 January 2008 05:06:04 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > # CONFIG_PARAVIRT_GUEST is not set
> > > CONFIG_LGUEST_GUEST=y
> >
> > This looks like a "randconfig" bug, to be
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 10:24:47AM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Sunday 20 January 2008 05:06:04 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > x86 randconfig testing found the following build failure:
> >
> > arch/x86/lguest/boot.c: In function 'lazy_hcall':
> > arch/x86/lguest/boot.c:151: error: implicit
On Sunday 20 January 2008 05:06:04 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> x86 randconfig testing found the following build failure:
>
> arch/x86/lguest/boot.c: In function 'lazy_hcall':
> arch/x86/lguest/boot.c:151: error: implicit declaration of function
> 'paravirt_get_lazy_mode' arch/x86/lguest/boot.c:151:
x86 randconfig testing found the following build failure:
arch/x86/lguest/boot.c: In function 'lazy_hcall':
arch/x86/lguest/boot.c:151: error: implicit declaration of function
'paravirt_get_lazy_mode'
arch/x86/lguest/boot.c:151: error: 'PARAVIRT_LAZY_NONE' undeclared (first use
in this
x86 randconfig testing found the following build failure:
arch/x86/lguest/boot.c: In function 'lazy_hcall':
arch/x86/lguest/boot.c:151: error: implicit declaration of function
'paravirt_get_lazy_mode'
arch/x86/lguest/boot.c:151: error: 'PARAVIRT_LAZY_NONE' undeclared (first use
in this
On Sunday 20 January 2008 05:06:04 Ingo Molnar wrote:
x86 randconfig testing found the following build failure:
arch/x86/lguest/boot.c: In function 'lazy_hcall':
arch/x86/lguest/boot.c:151: error: implicit declaration of function
'paravirt_get_lazy_mode' arch/x86/lguest/boot.c:151: error:
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 10:24:47AM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Sunday 20 January 2008 05:06:04 Ingo Molnar wrote:
x86 randconfig testing found the following build failure:
arch/x86/lguest/boot.c: In function 'lazy_hcall':
arch/x86/lguest/boot.c:151: error: implicit declaration of
On Sunday 20 January 2008 10:49:45 Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 10:24:47AM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Sunday 20 January 2008 05:06:04 Ingo Molnar wrote:
# CONFIG_PARAVIRT_GUEST is not set
CONFIG_LGUEST_GUEST=y
This looks like a randconfig bug, to be honest.
At Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:10:08 +0100,
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> On Friday, 18 of January 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >
> > > > Subject : snd_hda_intel 2.6.24-rc2 bug: interrupts don't always
> > > > work on Lenovo X60s
> > > >
On Friday, 18 of January 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Subject : snd_hda_intel 2.6.24-rc2 bug: interrupts
> > > > > don't always work on Lenovo X60s
> > > > > Submitter : Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > Date
* Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Subject : snd_hda_intel 2.6.24-rc2 bug: interrupts don't always
> > > > work on Lenovo X60s
> > > > Submitter : Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Date: 2007-11-08 14:55
> > > > References :
On Friday, 18 of January 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > There are thirteen regressions for which we have patches but they aren't
> > merged. That seems rather high.
>
> I think a number of them have been merged, or the thing that caused them
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 16:18 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > There are thirteen regressions for which we have patches but they aren't
> > merged. That seems rather high.
>
> I think a number of them have been merged, or the thing that caused
At Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:10:08 +0100,
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, 18 of January 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
Subject : snd_hda_intel 2.6.24-rc2 bug: interrupts don't always
work on Lenovo X60s
Submitter : Roland
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 16:18 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
There are thirteen regressions for which we have patches but they aren't
merged. That seems rather high.
I think a number of them have been merged, or the thing that caused them
On Friday, 18 of January 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
There are thirteen regressions for which we have patches but they aren't
merged. That seems rather high.
I think a number of them have been merged, or the thing that caused them
reverted.
* Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Subject : snd_hda_intel 2.6.24-rc2 bug: interrupts don't always
work on Lenovo X60s
Submitter : Roland Dreier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007-11-08 14:55
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/8/255
On Friday, 18 of January 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Subject : snd_hda_intel 2.6.24-rc2 bug: interrupts
don't always work on Lenovo X60s
Submitter : Roland Dreier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date : 2007-11-08
* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Subject : jiffies counter leaps in 2.6.24-rc3
> > > Submitter : Stefano Brivio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Date : 2007-11-29 08:36
> > > References: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/24/53
> > >
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> There are thirteen regressions for which we have patches but they aren't
> merged. That seems rather high.
I think a number of them have been merged, or the thing that caused them
reverted. For example.
> > Subject : [2.6.24-rc6]
> > Subject : PATA_HPT37X embezzles two ports
> > Submitter : "Bjoern Olausson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: 2007-12-12 11:05
> > References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/12/12/161
> > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9551
> > Handled-By :
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:35:41 +0100
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This message contains a list of some regressions from 2.6.23 reported since
> 2.6.24-rc1 was released, for which there are no fixes in the mainline I know
> of. __If any of them have been fixed already, please let
This message contains a list of some regressions from 2.6.23 reported since
2.6.24-rc1 was released, for which there are no fixes in the mainline I know
of. If any of them have been fixed already, please let me know.
If you know of any other unresolved regressions from 2.6.23, please let me know
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:35:41 +0100
Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This message contains a list of some regressions from 2.6.23 reported since
2.6.24-rc1 was released, for which there are no fixes in the mainline I know
of. __If any of them have been fixed already, please let me
Subject : PATA_HPT37X embezzles two ports
Submitter : Bjoern Olausson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007-12-12 11:05
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/12/12/161
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9551
Handled-By : Alan Cox [EMAIL
* Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Subject : jiffies counter leaps in 2.6.24-rc3
Submitter : Stefano Brivio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date : 2007-11-29 08:36
References: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/24/53
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9475
This message contains a list of some regressions from 2.6.23 reported since
2.6.24-rc1 was released, for which there are no fixes in the mainline I know
of. If any of them have been fixed already, please let me know.
If you know of any other unresolved regressions from 2.6.23, please let me know
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
There are thirteen regressions for which we have patches but they aren't
merged. That seems rather high.
I think a number of them have been merged, or the thing that caused them
reverted. For example.
Subject : [2.6.24-rc6] pdflush
28 matches
Mail list logo
