On Fri, 25 May 2007, Romano Giannetti wrote:
>
> ...and while at it, I decided to start by learning a bit more of git,
> and installed the last version...
>
> % git clone
> http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git
> linux-2.6
> Initialized empty Git repository in
On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 15:49 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> It really would be nice of you to just "git bisect" this, to see where it
> started having that 60-second delay..
...and while at it, I decided to start by learning a bit more of git,
and installed the last version...
% git clone
ht
On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 15:49 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Fri, 25 May 2007, Romano Giannetti wrote:
> >
> > Another naive doubt I have is: in 2.6.17.13, with additional patches
> > http://zeus2.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=d834c16516d1ebec4766fc58
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 02:21:26PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> It's not a matter of when it's evaluated. The user is supposed to be
> able to set EXTRA_CFLAGS on the command-line, yes? If they do that then
> the "=" in there will rub out their efforts. The makefiles should be
> appending ne
On Fri, 25 May 2007, Romano Giannetti wrote:
>
> Another naive doubt I have is: in 2.6.17.13, with additional patches
> http://zeus2.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=d834c16516d1ebec4766fc58c059bf01311e6045
> http://zeus2.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 11:51:53PM +0200, Romano Giannetti wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 23:12 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>
> >
> > I really cannot see why it makes a difference.
> > If you use += (and :=) make will resolve EXTRA_CFLAGS when it see it.
> > Whereas with = make will resolve it onl
On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 08:28 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Can you compile those two modules with PCMCIA_DEBUG=4?
>
> Something like
>
> make EXTRA_CFLAGS=-DPCMCIA_DEBUG=4
>
Well, I have to give up for tonight... that make do not works (see the
problem explained in other messages, some p
On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 23:12 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>
> I really cannot see why it makes a difference.
> If you use += (and :=) make will resolve EXTRA_CFLAGS when it see it.
> Whereas with = make will resolve it only when actually referenced.
>
> But the way we use EXTRA_CFLAGS it should not
On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 13:35 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 May 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > Occasional lockups on resume is probably a separate issue, and it might
> > well be a race, or even just firmware timing bugs.
>
> Btw, to solve the 60-second timeout problem, do you
On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 14:01 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2007 22:14:08 +0200
> Romano Giannetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ntfs is being naughty.
>
> hm, lots of Makefiles commit the same sin. Sam, is this as busted as
> I think it is?
Hmmm...
CC [M] drivers/ide/pci/amd
On Thu, 24 May 2007 23:12:37 +0200
Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 02:01:54PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 May 2007 22:14:08 +0200
> > Romano Giannetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Compiling now. I had lost a lot of time because at first try
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 02:01:54PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2007 22:14:08 +0200
> Romano Giannetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Compiling now. I had lost a lot of time because at first try it stopped
> > in ntfs:
> >
> > CC [M] fs/ntfs/super.o
> > fs/ntfs/super.c: In fu
On Thu, 24 May 2007 22:14:08 +0200
Romano Giannetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Compiling now. I had lost a lot of time because at first try it stopped
> in ntfs:
>
> CC [M] fs/ntfs/super.o
> fs/ntfs/super.c: In function ___init_ntfs_fs___:
> fs/ntfs/super.c:3152: error: expected ___)___ befo
On Thu, 24 May 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Occasional lockups on resume is probably a separate issue, and it might
> well be a race, or even just firmware timing bugs.
Btw, to solve the 60-second timeout problem, do you actually _need_ to
have CONFIG_PCMCIA_LOAD_CIS enabled for those card
On Thu, 24 May 2007, Romano Giannetti wrote:
>
> Well, I've made a bit of a mess. The setup that has not the delay when
> the card is out is a plain 2.6.21.2 (without suspend ordering).
>
> The lockup ocurred on a 2.6.21.1 WITH the suspend ordering patch, but
> was just one time, after I plugg
On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 08:52 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 May 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > Ok. That was probably true even before you added the suspend ordering
> > patch.
>
> Oh, no it apparently wasn't. I missed your other email that said
>
>"So, I tried to suspend w
On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 08:28 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Can you compile those two modules with PCMCIA_DEBUG=4?
>
> Something like
>
> make EXTRA_CFLAGS=-DPCMCIA_DEBUG=4
>
> should do it. You might also enable CONFIG_PCMCIA_DEBUG while you're at
> it. And then the extra debugging ou
On Thu, 24 May 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Ok. That was probably true even before you added the suspend ordering
> patch.
Oh, no it apparently wasn't. I missed your other email that said
"So, I tried to suspend without any card in the pcmcia slot. Guess what?
I extracted the card a
On Thu, 24 May 2007, Romano Giannetti wrote:
>
> More data. I compiled 2.6.21.2 + the patch "Fix ACPI suspend / device
> suspend ordering problem (52ade9b3b97fd3bea42842a056fe0786c28d0555)
>
> and I discovered that if I do not put the 3Com 3CXEM556B card into the
> pcmcia slot, the suspend/res
(Changing subject to something more informative. You are lost,
original thread is at http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/23/38 )
On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 14:06 +0200, Romano Giannetti wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 15:07 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 22 May 2007, Romano Giannetti wrote:
> > >
20 matches
Mail list logo
