On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Sonny Rao wrote:
>
> Can this method detect breakages that are spread across more than one
> patch? I suppose it'll just trigger on the last patch commited in the
> set in this case?
It will trigger on just the commit that introduces the user-visible
breakage, so yes,
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Sonny Rao wrote:
Can this method detect breakages that are spread across more than one
patch? I suppose it'll just trigger on the last patch commited in the
set in this case?
It will trigger on just the commit that introduces the user-visible
breakage, so yes, it's
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 01:45:28AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> >
> > The problem appeared between 2.6.12-git3 and 2.6.12-git4.
>
> Just for reference, that's git ID's
>
>
>
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
>
> The problem appeared between 2.6.12-git3 and 2.6.12-git4.
Just for reference, that's git ID's
1d345dac1f30af1cd9f3a1faa12f9f18f17f236e..2a5a68b840cbab31baab2d9b2e1e6de3b289ae1e
and that's 225 commits and the diff is 55,781 lines long.
It would
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
The problem appeared between 2.6.12-git3 and 2.6.12-git4.
Just for reference, that's git ID's
1d345dac1f30af1cd9f3a1faa12f9f18f17f236e..2a5a68b840cbab31baab2d9b2e1e6de3b289ae1e
and that's 225 commits and the diff is 55,781 lines long.
It would be
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 01:45:28AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
The problem appeared between 2.6.12-git3 and 2.6.12-git4.
Just for reference, that's git ID's
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
>> >It's a PII-350 with more or less SuSE 9.3. The machine has no net access,
>> > so I can only try to narrow it down to one rc at the weekend.
>>
>> 2.6.12 works fine, everything since 2.6.13-rc1 breaks it.
>
>Gaah. I don't see
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
It's a PII-350 with more or less SuSE 9.3. The machine has no net access,
so I can only try to narrow it down to one rc at the weekend.
2.6.12 works fine, everything since 2.6.13-rc1 breaks it.
Gaah. I don't see anything really
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
>> >It's a PII-350 with more or less SuSE 9.3. The machine has no net access,
>> > so I can only try to narrow it down to one rc at the weekend.
>>
>> 2.6.12 works fine, everything since 2.6.13-rc1 breaks it.
>
>Gaah. I don't see
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
It's a PII-350 with more or less SuSE 9.3. The machine has no net access,
so I can only try to narrow it down to one rc at the weekend.
2.6.12 works fine, everything since 2.6.13-rc1 breaks it.
Gaah. I don't see anything really
>Helge Hafting wrote:
>>Dave Airlie wrote:
>>> I switched back to 2.6.13-rc4-mm1 at this point for another reason,
>>> my X display aquired a nasty tendency to go blank for no reason
>>> during work,
>>> something I could fix by changing resolution baqck and forth. X
>>> also
On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 10:44 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
>
> > >It's a PII-350 with more or less SuSE 9.3. The machine has no net access,
> > >so
> > > I can only try to narrow it down to one rc at the weekend.
> >
> > 2.6.12 works fine,
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> >It's a PII-350 with more or less SuSE 9.3. The machine has no net access, so
> > I can only try to narrow it down to one rc at the weekend.
>
> 2.6.12 works fine, everything since 2.6.13-rc1 breaks it.
Gaah. I don't see anything really obvious in
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Eike, maybe you could change the ">=" to just ">" instead?
Ahh, I think you'd need to change the "i < PCI_ROM_RESOURCE" a few lines
above that to use "<=" too.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Eike, maybe you could change the = to just instead?
Ahh, I think you'd need to change the i PCI_ROM_RESOURCE a few lines
above that to use = too.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
It's a PII-350 with more or less SuSE 9.3. The machine has no net access, so
I can only try to narrow it down to one rc at the weekend.
2.6.12 works fine, everything since 2.6.13-rc1 breaks it.
Gaah. I don't see anything really obvious in that
On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 10:44 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
It's a PII-350 with more or less SuSE 9.3. The machine has no net access,
so
I can only try to narrow it down to one rc at the weekend.
2.6.12 works fine, everything since
Helge Hafting wrote:
Dave Airlie wrote:
I switched back to 2.6.13-rc4-mm1 at this point for another reason,
my X display aquired a nasty tendency to go blank for no reason
during work,
something I could fix by changing resolution baqck and forth. X
also tended to get
Helge Hafting wrote:
>Dave Airlie wrote:
>> I switched back to 2.6.13-rc4-mm1 at this point for another reason,
>> my X display aquired a nasty tendency to go blank for no reason
>> during work,
>> something I could fix by changing resolution baqck and forth. X
>> also tended
Helge Hafting wrote:
Dave Airlie wrote:
I switched back to 2.6.13-rc4-mm1 at this point for another reason,
my X display aquired a nasty tendency to go blank for no reason
during work,
something I could fix by changing resolution baqck and forth. X
also tended to get
Dave Airlie wrote:
I switched back to 2.6.13-rc4-mm1 at this point for another reason,
my X display aquired a nasty tendency to go blank for no reason
during work,
something I could fix by changing resolution baqck and forth. X
also tended to get
stuck for a minute now
Dave Airlie wrote:
I switched back to 2.6.13-rc4-mm1 at this point for another reason,
my X display aquired a nasty tendency to go blank for no reason
during work,
something I could fix by changing resolution baqck and forth. X
also tended to get
stuck for a minute now
Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Danny ter Haar wrote:
>>What i dont "get" is that ethernet also goes down when the scsi
>>controller goes bezerk.
>>I'm pretty sure it's not a hardware problem since 2.6.12-mm1 survives
>>and brings this usenet host in the worldwide top 1000.
Danny ter Haar wrote:
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2.6.13-rc5 seemed to kill a scsi disk (sdb) for me, where 2.6.13-rc4-mm1
have no problems with the same disk.
Sort of same with me:
2.6.12-mm1 runs for _weeks_ where
Danny ter Haar wrote:
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Helge Hafting [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2.6.13-rc5 seemed to kill a scsi disk (sdb) for me, where 2.6.13-rc4-mm1
have no problems with the same disk.
Sort of same with me:
2.6.12-mm1 runs for _weeks_ where others
Helge Hafting [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Danny ter Haar wrote:
What i dont get is that ethernet also goes down when the scsi
controller goes bezerk.
I'm pretty sure it's not a hardware problem since 2.6.12-mm1 survives
and brings this usenet host in the worldwide top 1000.
Interesting.
I have no
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2.6.13-rc5 seemed to kill a scsi disk (sdb) for me, where 2.6.13-rc4-mm1
>> have no problems with the same disk.
Sort of same with me:
2.6.12-mm1 runs for _weeks_ where others keep crashing:
>The latest -git
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 03:05:06PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > The two kernels have some config differences. The 2.6.13-rc5 kernel
> > has ACPI+CPUFREQ configured, that the 2.6.13-rc4-mm1 doesn't have.
>
> That's a pretty big difference ;)
>
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 03:05:06PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
Helge Hafting [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
The two kernels have some config differences. The 2.6.13-rc5 kernel
has ACPI+CPUFREQ configured, that the 2.6.13-rc4-mm1 doesn't have.
That's a pretty big difference ;)
Sure.
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Helge Hafting [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2.6.13-rc5 seemed to kill a scsi disk (sdb) for me, where 2.6.13-rc4-mm1
have no problems with the same disk.
Sort of same with me:
2.6.12-mm1 runs for _weeks_ where others keep crashing:
The latest -git kernel (or
Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 2.6.13-rc5 seemed to kill a scsi disk (sdb) for me, where 2.6.13-rc4-mm1
> have no problems with the same disk.
>
> Machine: opteron running a x86-64 kernel, with built-in SATA as well as
> a symbios scsi controller. Two videocards running independent
2.6.13-rc5 seemed to kill a scsi disk (sdb) for me, where 2.6.13-rc4-mm1
have no problems with the same disk.
Machine: opteron running a x86-64 kernel, with built-in SATA as well as
a symbios scsi controller. Two videocards running independent xservers.
The sdb disk is on the symbios controller.
2.6.13-rc5 seemed to kill a scsi disk (sdb) for me, where 2.6.13-rc4-mm1
have no problems with the same disk.
Machine: opteron running a x86-64 kernel, with built-in SATA as well as
a symbios scsi controller. Two videocards running independent xservers.
The sdb disk is on the symbios controller.
Helge Hafting [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2.6.13-rc5 seemed to kill a scsi disk (sdb) for me, where 2.6.13-rc4-mm1
have no problems with the same disk.
Machine: opteron running a x86-64 kernel, with built-in SATA as well as
a symbios scsi controller. Two videocards running independent
34 matches
Mail list logo
