On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 04:36:30PM -0500, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 04:29:11PM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
> >
> > Bizarre - it panic'd again last Thursday while I was in X, but I
> > still didn't manage to log any output. At the weekend, I had the
> >
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 04:29:11PM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
>
>> Today, I've built 2.6.19.2 without highmem (the box only has 1GB,
>> dunno why I'd included that in the original config) and I will
>> continue to wait patiently for either a week without problems, or
>>
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 04:29:11PM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
Today, I've built 2.6.19.2 without highmem (the box only has 1GB,
dunno why I'd included that in the original config) and I will
continue to wait patiently for either a week without problems, or
something that
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 04:36:30PM -0500, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 04:29:11PM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
Bizarre - it panic'd again last Thursday while I was in X, but I
still didn't manage to log any output. At the weekend, I had the
bright idea
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 04:29:11PM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> Today, I've built 2.6.19.2 without highmem (the box only has 1GB,
> dunno why I'd included that in the original config) and I will
> continue to wait patiently for either a week without problems, or
> something that I can manage to
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 04:29:11PM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
Today, I've built 2.6.19.2 without highmem (the box only has 1GB,
dunno why I'd included that in the original config) and I will
continue to wait patiently for either a week without problems, or
something that I can manage to note
On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 02:26:41PM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> I guess that when it does have problems, it is mostly within 30
> minutes of booting - otherwise, it can be up all day. So, for the
> moment I'm hopeful that changing the config will help, but it will
> be several days before I
On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 02:26:41PM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
I guess that when it does have problems, it is mostly within 30
minutes of booting - otherwise, it can be up all day. So, for the
moment I'm hopeful that changing the config will help, but it will
be several days before I feel at
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 02:04:59PM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 19:34:59 + Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 01:42:32PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
> > >
> > > You might remove and re-insert the DIMMS.
> > > Sometimes there are poor contacts if the DIMMS are not
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 02:04:59PM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 19:34:59 + Ken Moffat wrote:
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 01:42:32PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
You might remove and re-insert the DIMMS.
Sometimes there are poor contacts if the DIMMS are not fully seated
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 19:34:59 + Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 01:42:32PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
> >
> > You might remove and re-insert the DIMMS.
> > Sometimes there are poor contacts if the DIMMS are not fully seated and
> > clicked in.
> >
> > The real mystery is the 32 vs
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 19:34:59 + Ken Moffat wrote:
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 01:42:32PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
You might remove and re-insert the DIMMS.
Sometimes there are poor contacts if the DIMMS are not fully seated and
clicked in.
The real mystery is the 32 vs 64-bit thing.
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 01:42:32PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
>
> You might remove and re-insert the DIMMS.
> Sometimes there are poor contacts if the DIMMS are not fully seated and
> clicked in.
>
> The real mystery is the 32 vs 64-bit thing.
> Are the devices configured the same way -- ie are
On Tuesday 02 January 2007 13:04, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 12:25:57PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
> > > it's been nothing but trouble in 32-bit mode.
> > > It still works fine when I boot it in 64-bit mode.
> >
> > A shot in the dark at the spontaneous reset issue, but no clue on
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 12:25:57PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
> > it's been nothing but trouble in 32-bit mode.
> > It still works fine when I boot it in 64-bit mode.
>
> A shot in the dark at the spontaneous reset issue, but no clue on the 32 vs
> 64-bit observation...
>
> See if ACPI exports
> it's been nothing but trouble in 32-bit mode.
> It still works fine when I boot it in 64-bit mode.
A shot in the dark at the spontaneous reset issue, but no clue on the 32 vs
64-bit observation...
See if ACPI exports any temperature readings under
/proc/acpi/thermal_zone/*/temperature
and
it's been nothing but trouble in 32-bit mode.
It still works fine when I boot it in 64-bit mode.
A shot in the dark at the spontaneous reset issue, but no clue on the 32 vs
64-bit observation...
See if ACPI exports any temperature readings under
/proc/acpi/thermal_zone/*/temperature
and if
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 12:25:57PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
it's been nothing but trouble in 32-bit mode.
It still works fine when I boot it in 64-bit mode.
A shot in the dark at the spontaneous reset issue, but no clue on the 32 vs
64-bit observation...
See if ACPI exports any
On Tuesday 02 January 2007 13:04, Ken Moffat wrote:
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 12:25:57PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
it's been nothing but trouble in 32-bit mode.
It still works fine when I boot it in 64-bit mode.
A shot in the dark at the spontaneous reset issue, but no clue on the 32 vs
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 01:42:32PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
You might remove and re-insert the DIMMS.
Sometimes there are poor contacts if the DIMMS are not fully seated and
clicked in.
The real mystery is the 32 vs 64-bit thing.
Are the devices configured the same way -- ie are they both
On Monday 01 January 2007 19:13, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 05:07:58PM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 04:48:55PM +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > > Obviously papering over a severe bug, but why is it necessary for you
> > > to run a 32bit kernel to
On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 05:07:58PM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 04:48:55PM +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> >
> > Obviously papering over a severe bug, but why is it necessary for you to
> > run a
> > 32bit kernel to test 32bit userspace? If your 64bit kernel is
On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 04:48:55PM +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
>
> Obviously papering over a severe bug, but why is it necessary for you to run
> a
> 32bit kernel to test 32bit userspace? If your 64bit kernel is stable, use the
> IA32 emulation surely?
>
My 64-bit is pure64 on this
On Monday 01 January 2007 16:01, Ken Moffat wrote:
> Hi, I've been running an athlon64 in 64-bit mode without problems,
> up to and incluing 2.6.19.1. A couple of weeks ago I decided to use
> it for testing x86 builds, since then it's been nothing but trouble
> in 32-bit mode. It still works
Hi, I've been running an athlon64 in 64-bit mode without problems,
up to and incluing 2.6.19.1. A couple of weeks ago I decided to use
it for testing x86 builds, since then it's been nothing but trouble
in 32-bit mode. It still works fine when I boot it in 64-bit mode.
I already had a 32-bit
Hi, I've been running an athlon64 in 64-bit mode without problems,
up to and incluing 2.6.19.1. A couple of weeks ago I decided to use
it for testing x86 builds, since then it's been nothing but trouble
in 32-bit mode. It still works fine when I boot it in 64-bit mode.
I already had a 32-bit
On Monday 01 January 2007 16:01, Ken Moffat wrote:
Hi, I've been running an athlon64 in 64-bit mode without problems,
up to and incluing 2.6.19.1. A couple of weeks ago I decided to use
it for testing x86 builds, since then it's been nothing but trouble
in 32-bit mode. It still works fine
On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 04:48:55PM +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
Obviously papering over a severe bug, but why is it necessary for you to run
a
32bit kernel to test 32bit userspace? If your 64bit kernel is stable, use the
IA32 emulation surely?
My 64-bit is pure64 on this
On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 05:07:58PM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 04:48:55PM +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
Obviously papering over a severe bug, but why is it necessary for you to
run a
32bit kernel to test 32bit userspace? If your 64bit kernel is stable, use
On Monday 01 January 2007 19:13, Ken Moffat wrote:
On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 05:07:58PM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 04:48:55PM +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
Obviously papering over a severe bug, but why is it necessary for you
to run a 32bit kernel to test 32bit
30 matches
Mail list logo
