Hi Chris-
John Stoffel wrote:
As a user of Netapps, having quotas (if only for reporting purposes)
and some way to migrate non-used files to slower/cheaper storage would
be great.
Ie. being able to setup two pools, one being RAID6, the other being
RAID1, where all currently accessed files are
> > Interesting. If you're exceeding your stack ulimit, you should be
> > seeing either an "argument list too long" message or getting a
> > SIGSEGV. Have you tried bypassing wc and piping the output straight
> > to a file?
>
> I think it sends SIGKILL on failure paths.
Setting stack limit to
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 10:46:55AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Oh, but you want to hack the hardware to accept it? That's a totally
> different issue. If so, buy a Neuros OSD box.
>
> Really. Go to google, and type in "Neuros OSD".
>
> Do it *now*, and then stop wasting our time. You
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> > I suspect that the probability of your proposal succeeding would be
> > increased
> > if you could prepare a patch...
>
> Here we go:
I don't mind ripping them out, but it makes sense only if people are
actually signed up to implementing
On Thu, 14 June 2007 19:45:10 +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
>
> Nearly two years ago I have spoken to a person that reverse engineered
> the behaviour of several chips used in pendrives. At the time that
> reverse engineering apparently covered most of the market. The details
> were quite lengthy
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 12:21:49PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Jun 14 07:55:52 nigel-m2v kernel: ATA: abnormal status 0x7F on port
> > 0x0001c807
> > Jun 14 07:55:52 nigel-m2v kernel: ATA: abnormal status 0x7F on port
> > 0x0001c807
Unrelated to the other error, but I've been meaning to
On Jun 14, 2007, Florin Malita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
When they download the software, they get another copy, and they have
a right to modify that copy.
>>> But you get the TiVO corporations
Alexandre Oliva ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> > Sure, if they make any changes or fixes to Linux. Other than that,
> > only the same benefit that Microsoft get from Windows piracy - TiVo
> > employees become familiar with Linux and are more likely to use it
> > and maybe contribute more in another
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 02:26:30PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> In the program you received under GPLv1.
>
> Hey, you said there was code under GPLv1.1 in the Linux tree. Then,
> there should be a copy of GPLv1.1 in there, otherwise AFAICT the
> distribution of that code is copyright
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 11:22 -0700, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > > Interesting. If you're exceeding your stack ulimit, you should be
> > > seeing either an "argument list too long" message or getting a
> > > SIGSEGV. Have you tried bypassing wc and piping the output straight
> > > to a file?
> >
> > I
On Jun 14, 2007, Paulo Marques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> $ find -name "*.c" | xargs grep "any later version" | wc -l
> 3138
> $ find -name "*.c" | wc -l
> 9482
How many of these don't mention version 2?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 06:44:25 +0200, Michael Gerdau said:
> > > TiVo retains the right to modify that copy of Linux as it sees fit.
> > >
> > > It doesn't give the recipients the same right.
> > It does, can't you modify their kernel source? Where does it say you should
> > be
> > able to run you
Forgive me for a little off-topic question but I have a difficulty
to understand a technical issue about this all.
The Linux Kernel cannot easily switch licenses because of the
large amount of people involved in it (i.e. contributed code on which
they have copyright).
But many of FSF's GNU
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> .. but I think that the software license I choose should be about the
> software, and about giving back in kind.
> And the GPLv2 is _perfect_ for that.
> And the GPLv3 is horrible.
Is there anything other than TiVOization to
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I suspect that the probability of your proposal succeeding would be increased
if you could prepare a patch...
Here we go:
I don't mind ripping them out, but it makes sense only if people are
actually signed up to
El Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:49:19 -0300, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
escribió:
> Let me see if I got your position right: when TiVO imposes
> restrictions, that's ok, but when others want to find ways to stop it,
> then it's not. *Now* I'm confused ;-)
Me, I agree that hardware shouldn't
Hi to all,
a simple question the answer to witch I didn't find in CodingStyle.
Look for a code snip:
err = foo(arg_a, arg_b, arg_c,
arg_d);
the second line contains 'd' arg aligned with tabs only
but it could be rewritten with more elegant style (by adding
a few spaces)
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 02:20:26PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> Hi Chris-
>
> John Stoffel wrote:
> >As a user of Netapps, having quotas (if only for reporting purposes)
> >and some way to migrate non-used files to slower/cheaper storage would
> >be great.
> >
> >Ie. being able to setup two pools,
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
>
> So now the copy of the GPL v2 isn't good enough for the GPLv1.1 code?
> Maybe that code said 'or later' in the license and hence someone added
> it to a GPL v2 project since that sounds perfectly OK.
Where did that GPLv1.1 nonsense come from?
On 6/14/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Paulo Marques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> $ find -name "*.c" | xargs grep "any later version" | wc -l
> 3138
> $ find -name "*.c" | wc -l
> 9482
How many of these don't mention version 2?
It does not matter. GPL v2 and
Hello Ingo and others,
After reading http://lwn.net/Articles/236485/ and noticing few refernces
to accounting i decided to give CFS a try. With sched-cfs-v2.6.21.4-16
i get pretty weird results, it seems like scheduler is dead set on trying
to move the processes to different CPUs/cores all the
Hi all!
On Die, 12 Jun 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > When I resume, everything seems to come up (fan becomes busy, disk and
> > dvd spin up for a short time), but the machine is not responding to
> > anything - neither keyboard, mouse nor ping from another machine. The
> > laptop is effectively
On 6/14/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, "Dmitry Torokhov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/14/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 2007, Dmitry Torokhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wednesday 13 June 2007 21:59, Alexandre Oliva
Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Did this succeed? If the application is still
truncating that file, the
umount should have failed.
Actually, what I expect to happen is for the remount,ro
to block until the file deletion completes. But it
doesn't.
Once a f/s is read-only, there should be NO
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 09:42:16PM +0300, Neshama Parhoti wrote:
> Forgive me for a little off-topic question but I have a difficulty
> to understand a technical issue about this all.
>
> The Linux Kernel cannot easily switch licenses because of the
> large amount of people involved in it
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> Is there anything other than TiVOization to justify these statements?
Do you need anything else?
But if by the question you mean "would you think the GPLv3 is fine without
the new language in section 6 about the 'consumer devices'", then the
Neshama Parhoti ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> But many of FSF's GNU projects are similar - for example GCC has
> contributors
> from many many companies and individuals, from which I presume there
> are who might object to GPLv3.
FSF requires copyright assignment to the FSF on things like the
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Kevin Fox wrote:
>>
>> The hardware isn't directly covered by the GPL, correct. But, if they
>> want to use the software on the hardware, they have to comply with the
>> GPL.
> Only with the GPLv3.
This is not
Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [patch] sched: fix SysRq-N (normalize RT tasks)
>
> Gene Heskett reported the following problem while testing CFS: SysRq-N
> is not always effective in normalizing tasks back to SCHED_OTHER.
>
> the reason
On Jun 14, 2007, Bill Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
>> > Sure, if they make any changes or fixes to Linux. Other than that,
>> > only the same benefit that Microsoft get from Windows piracy - TiVo
>> > employees become familiar with Linux and
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 04:30:57PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
>
> There is so much unskilled labor in driver hacking land (I'm merely
> speaking for myself of course) that something like the driver core
> /really/ needs well-working, easy to understand, and well-documented APIs.
>
> PS: By a
On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 12:52:21PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 16:48:45 +0200 (CEST), Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > OK. Geert, care to submit a new patch removing struct i2c_device_id
> > > altogether?
> >
> > Sorry, probably
On Jun 14, 2007, "Chris Friesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> But see, I'm not talking about getting permission to hack the
>> hardware. I'm only talking about getting permission to hack the Free
>> Software in it.
> No you're not...you're talking about being able to
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Diego Calleja wrote:
>
> And the FSF is trying to control the design and licensing of hardware throught
> the influence of their software. And I think it's wrong. I'm all to forbid
> hardware
> that imposes restrictions on hardware, but software licenses are NOT the way
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> But you have that regex in _user_ space, in a place where policy
>> is loaded into kernel.
>
> then the kernel is going to have to call out to userspace every time a
> file is created or renamed and the policy is going to be
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> Let me see if I got your position right: when TiVO imposes
>> restrictions, that's ok
> Sure. I think it's ok that Microsoft imposes restrictions too on the
> software they create.
On Jun 14, 2007, Robin Getz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu 14 Jun 2007 01:07, Alexandre Oliva pondered:
>> then maybe the small
>> company could have been more careful about the regulations. There are
>> various ways to prevent these changes that don't involve imposing
>> restrictions of
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 06:16:03PM -, Miller, Mike (OS Dev) wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Neil Horman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:31 AM
> > To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: Miller, Mike (OS Dev); ISS StorageDev;
> > [EMAIL
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 11:23:11AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >
> > > I suspect that the probability of your proposal succeeding would be
> > > increased
> > > if you could prepare a patch...
> >
> > Here we go:
FWIW, I do appreciate the
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> It's not that the hardware is deciding to impose restrictions on its
>> own. It's the hardware distributor that is deciding to use the
>> hardware to impose restrictions on the user.
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 07:48:03PM +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
> On 06/14/2007 06:01 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> >It's totally pointless to try to "force" people to be good. That's like
> >"curing" gay people. Not going to happen.
>
> Tangent, but that could in fact quite easily be construed
On Jun 14, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 03:03:40 -0300, Alexandre Oliva said:
>> On Jun 14, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> > If a company sells you hardware that includes a ROM that contains GPL'ed
>> > software, are they in violation of the GPL if they don't
> The GPL applies to "the Program" which in this case is the Linux kernel
> as a whole and it in fact does indicate a specific version. All code
> submitted and included in this program has has been submitted with the
> understanding that the work as a whole is specifically licensed as
> GPLv2.
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> > In other words, Red Hat distributes copies (and yes, you *get* that copy),
>> > and you cannot modify that copy that you got.
>>
>> And Red Hat can't either. I thought that was
On Jun 14, 2007 22:04 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 03:14:58AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > B FA_DEALLOCATE
> > > removes the underlying disk space with the given range. The disk space
> > > shall be removed regardless of it's contents so both allocated space
> > >
Oleg Nesterov wrote:
sock_xmit() re-implements sigprocmask() and dequeue_signal_lock().
Yeah, that code was written before those existed. Thanks for the clean up.
Note: I can't understand this dequeue_signal(), it can dequeue SIGKILL
for the user-space task doing nbd_ioctl() ?
So we can
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
So can you please explain to me how enabling TiVO to deny others the
freedom that it received "in kind", failing to keep with the "in kind"
spirit of the GPL, encourage people to work together, and to merge?
They're not denying others the freedom that they themselves
This patchset cleans up the page cache handling by replacing
open coded shifts and adds through inline function calls.
The ultimate goal is to replace all uses of PAGE_CACHE_xxx in the
kernel through the use of these functions. All the functions take
a mapping parameter. This is in anticipation
We use the macros PAGE_CACHE_SIZE PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT PAGE_CACHE_MASK
and PAGE_CACHE_ALIGN in various places in the kernel. Many times
common operations like calculating the offset or the index are coded
using shifts and adds. This patch provides inline function to
get the calculations accomplished
Simplify page cache zeroing of segments of pages through 3 functions
zero_user_segments(page, start1, end1, start2, end2)
Zeros two segments of the page. It takes the position where to
start and end the zeroing which avoids length calculations.
zero_user_segment(page, start,
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
mm/filemap.c | 76 +--
1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
Index: vps/mm/filemap.c
===
---
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
mm/truncate.c | 35 ++-
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
Index: vps/mm/truncate.c
===
--- vps.orig/mm/truncate.c
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
mm/page-writeback.c |6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Index: vps/mm/page-writeback.c
===
--- vps.orig/mm/page-writeback.c2007-06-07
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
mm/filemap_xip.c | 28 ++--
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
Index: vps/mm/filemap_xip.c
===
--- vps.orig/mm/filemap_xip.c
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
mm/rmap.c |8
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6.22-rc4-mm2/mm/rmap.c
===
--- linux-2.6.22-rc4-mm2.orig/mm/rmap.c 2007-06-14
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
mm/migrate.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: vps/mm/migrate.c
===
--- vps.orig/mm/migrate.c 2007-06-11 15:56:37.0 -0700
+++
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/libfs.c | 18 ++
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Index: vps/fs/libfs.c
===
--- vps.orig/fs/libfs.c 2007-06-11 21:39:09.0 -0700
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/sync.c |8
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Index: vps/fs/sync.c
===
--- vps.orig/fs/sync.c 2007-06-04 17:57:25.0 -0700
+++
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/buffer.c | 99 +---
1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
Index: vps/fs/buffer.c
===
---
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
mm/fadvise.c |8
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Index: vps/mm/fadvise.c
===
--- vps.orig/mm/fadvise.c 2007-06-04 17:57:25.0 -0700
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/splice.c | 23 +--
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
Index: vps/fs/splice.c
===
--- vps.orig/fs/splice.c2007-06-09
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/mpage.c | 28
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
Index: vps/fs/mpage.c
===
--- vps.orig/fs/mpage.c 2007-06-11
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 16:48, DervishD wrote:
> But anyway the memory should last long. Even cheap flash memories
> with poor wear leveling (if any at all) usually long last. Given that
> I won't be writing continuously, wear shouldn't be a problem. I'm
> going to use this as a backup copy
Thanks for this patch. I was having the exact same symptoms as Justin
Piszcz, on a different, but similar motherboard:
Motherboard: GigaByte GA-G33-DS3R
BIOS rev: F2
Chipset: Intel G33
Memory: 8GB
Distro: Fedora 7 x86_64
Kernel: kernel-2.6.21-1.3194.fc7
Building vanilla 2.6.22-rc4 with your
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> Is there anything other than TiVOization to justify these statements?
> Do you need anything else?
No, I'm quite happy that this is all.
> But if by the question you mean "would you
On Jun 14, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 02:26:30PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> In the program you received under GPLv1.
>>
>> Hey, you said there was code under GPLv1.1 in the Linux tree. Then,
>> there should be a copy of GPLv1.1 in there,
On Thursday 14 June 2007 11:20:34 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 12:00:17AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 04:56:40 +0200, Adrian Bunk said:
> > > Reality check:
> > >
> > > Harald convinced companies that they have to provide the private keys
> > > required
On Jun 14, 2007, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The FSF required copyright assignment to themselves in order to accept
> the changes from the developers.
For many strategic projects, but not all of them.
> So the FSF owns the whole copyright and can change things whenever
> they want, to
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 04:46:36PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > Giving back "in kind" is obvious. I give you source code to do with as you
> > see fit. I just expect you to give back in kind: source code for me to do
> > with as I see fit, under the same license I gave you source code.
>
* Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I think the proper limit is the boundary where the limit of the
> > software is - because that's the only sane and globally workable way
> > to stop the power-hungry.
>
> But see, I'm
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 12:38:40PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> We use the macros PAGE_CACHE_SIZE PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT PAGE_CACHE_MASK
> and PAGE_CACHE_ALIGN in various places in the kernel. Many times
> common operations like calculating the offset or the index are coded
> using shifts and adds.
On Thursday 14 June 2007 12:06:31 Kevin Fox wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 20:42 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
>
>
> > > Do you deny that TiVo prevents you (or at least a random customer)
> > > from modifying the copy of Linux that they ship in their DVR?
> >
> > Exactly. They don't. What TiVO
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Diego Calleja wrote:
>> And the FSF is trying to control the design and licensing of
>> hardware throught the influence of their software.
It's not. It's only working to ensure recipients of the Free Software
can
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> We need access to PAGE_SIZE in vmlinux.lds.h.
> What is your plan with that usage?
This is about PAGE_CACHE_xxx. No changes to PAGE__SIZE are planned.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:09:36 -0400
"John W. Linville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It does not make sense to me to rip this out purely for aesthetic
> reasons.
Aesthetics are good, but that's not the main issue.
What is most worrying is that there appears to be a risk that these
newly-added
On Jun 14, 2007, "Dmitry Torokhov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, consider non-derived work.
I did, you snipped it out:
>> If your change is not a derived work, you're not bound by the terms
>> of the GPL as far as the change is concerned, so the GPL has no say
>> whatsoever as to how you
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> > Only with the GPLv3.
>
> This is not true. The terms of the GPLv2 that say you can't impose
> further restrictions on the exercise of the freedoms apply to the
> software under GPLv2 and GPLv3 just the same way.
The GPLv2 talks *only* about
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 12:58:21PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>
> > We need access to PAGE_SIZE in vmlinux.lds.h.
> > What is your plan with that usage?
>
> This is about PAGE_CACHE_xxx. No changes to PAGE__SIZE are planned.
Obviously - thanks for
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:38:39 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This patchset cleans up the page cache handling by replacing
> open coded shifts and adds through inline function calls.
If we never inflict variable PAGE_CACHE_SIZE upon the kernel, these changes
become pointless obfuscation.
Let's
Hi Jan :)
* Jan Knutar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dixit:
> On Wednesday 13 June 2007 16:48, DervishD wrote:
> > But anyway the memory should last long. Even cheap flash memories
> > with poor wear leveling (if any at all) usually long last. Given
> > that I won't be writing continuously, wear
On 06/14, Paul Clements wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> >Note: I can't understand this dequeue_signal(), it can dequeue SIGKILL
> >for the user-space task doing nbd_ioctl() ?
>
> So we can interrupt an nbd transmission without waiting for a TCP
> timeout (when we know the network is down).
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> Last I looked, TiVO was not the author of Linux. Did you sell out or
> something? ;-P :-D
You're a moron.
I'm the original author, and I selected the GPLv2 for Linux.
Tivo accepted that, and followed the GPLv2. Even the FSF lawyers agreed
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> Then would you consider relicensing Linux under GPLv3 + additional
> permission for Tivoization?
No. I'm not stupid.
The GPLv3 explicitly allows removing additional permissions.
So anybody who does "GPLv3 + additional permissions" is basically
Hi Jörn :)
* Jörn Engel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dixit:
> So let us look at the problems and how they interact with filesystems.
>
> 1. Write overhead
>
> If a filesystem only writes a small amount of data, typically 512 or
> 4096 bytes, smartmedia has to erase and write a full block. Most
>
On 6/14/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, "Dmitry Torokhov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, consider non-derived work.
I did, you snipped it out:
>> If your change is not a derived work, you're not bound by the terms
>> of the GPL as far as the change is
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> I see what you mean. IANAL, but I don't think that's how it works.
Why the hell do you keep saying that?
There *are* lawyers who have said that what Tivo did was legal. They were
the FSF's own lawyers. So now you're saying "I am not a lawyer,
Hi Jörn :)
* Jörn Engel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dixit:
> Any method I can imagine to offer good wear leveling will result in
> either a filesystem or at least a simplified one-file-system with the
> only file being the "block device" exported outward. So naturally my
> answer to the problem is
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 07:30:49PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 06:39:23PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
[]
> > I know, that most developers here are not working/familiar with what
> > Debian has as its bug shooting weapon ``The system is mainly controlled
> > by e-mail, but
On Jun 14, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
> They let you have the code and make changes to it,
Not to the software installed in the device.
What they do is like an author A who distributes a program to user B
under a non-Free Software license, and to user C under a Free
On 6/14/07, Lennart Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nothing prevents you from taking tivos kernel
changes and building your own hardware to run that code on, and as such
the spirit of the GPL v2 seems fulfilled.
Oh, come on: you're not serious, right? Something indeed prevents me
-- the
Hello,
I'm running Linux 2.6.16.29 on an ixp455 based board (arm). On rare
occasions, I am seeing the following stack dump, which gets resolved
only when a power cycle is done. Does anyone have any suggestions on
what to look for?
Thanks,
Jon
[42949427.37] scheduling while atomic:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Pim Zandbergen wrote:
Thanks for this patch. I was having the exact same symptoms as Justin Piszcz,
on a different, but similar motherboard:
Motherboard: GigaByte GA-G33-DS3R
BIOS rev: F2
Chipset: Intel G33
Memory: 8GB
Distro: Fedora 7 x86_64
Kernel:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 12:56:18PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:09:36 -0400
> "John W. Linville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It does not make sense to me to rip this out purely for aesthetic
> > reasons.
>
> Aesthetics are good, but that's not the main issue.
>
>
This patch set is code cleanup, mostly. It can wait until after 2.6.22.
Jeff
-
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
Cleanup of the SIGWINCH support.
Some code and comment reformatting.
The stack used for SIGWINCH threads was leaked. This is now fixed by
storing it with the pid and other information, and freeing it when the
thread is killed.
If something goes wrong with a WIGWINCH thread, and this is
UML had two wrapper procedures for kmalloc, um_kmalloc and
um_kmalloc_atomic because the flag constants weren't available in
userspace code. kern_constants.h had made kernel constants available
for a long time, so there is no need for these wrappers any more.
Rather, userspace code calls kmalloc
run_helper and run_helper_thread had arguments which were the same in
all callers. run_helper's stack_out was always NULL and
run_helper_thread's stack_order was always 0. These are now gone, and
the constants folded into the code.
Also fixed leaks of the helper stack in the AIO and SIGIO code.
Cleanup, mostly style violations.
Tidied the includes.
getmaster returns a real errno, which pty_open returns if there's a
problem.
The printks now have severity.
Changed os_* calls to call libc directly.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
arch/um/drivers/pty.c | 76
If the host side of a console can't be opened, this will now produce
visible error messages.
enable_chan now returns a status and this is passed up to con_open and
ssl_open, which will complain if anything went wrong.
The default host device for the serial line driver is now a pts device
rather
Add cpu_relax() to cmos_lock() inline function
for faster operation on SMT CPUs and less power consumption
on others in case of lock contention (which probably doesn't
happen too often, so admittedly this patch is not too exciting).
This is a small followup to my cpu_relax() patch series last
901 - 1000 of 1278 matches
Mail list logo
