On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>> Any technical reason why the background page aging fix was not applied?
>Because I have not heard anybody claim that it makes a huge difference..
Linus,
Marcelo's changes make a difference here -
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> Just my nickel on the issue.
Andre,
This patch I'm talking about is for a different issue from what was
discussed in the IO clustering thread.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> > Any technical reason why the background page aging fix was not applied?
>
> Because I have not heard anybody claim that it makes a huge difference..
Linus,
If it could help speed up the
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> Any technical reason why the background page aging fix was not applied?
Because I have not heard anybody claim that it makes a huge difference..
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> David Ford wrote:
> >
> > Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > > The ChangeLog may not be 100% complete. The physically big things are the
> > > PPC and ACPI updates, even if most people won't notice.
> > >
> > > Linus
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > pre10:
> > > -
David Ford wrote:
>
> > > Do the tulip driver updates address the increasingly common NETDEV timeout
> > > repots?
> >
> > In general you can answer this yourself by reading
> > drivers/net/tulip/ChangeLog.
> >
> > I don't see increasingly common timeout reports.. with which hardware?
> > They
Jonathan Earle wrote:
> Have you looked at the packet loss issue on the Znyx 4port cards? Even
> using the latest tulip driver, packet loss is still apparent with moderate
> loads.
I replied privately; but I just wanted to add that bug reports for the
in-kernel Tulip driver should be sent to
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Garzik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Do the tulip driver updates address the increasingly common
> NETDEV timeout
> > repots?
>
> I don't see increasingly common timeout reports.. with which
> hardware?
> They are likely on the newer LinkSys 4.1
Matti Aarnio wrote:
> I think they are separate problems.
> The first is power-management suspend/resume issue, and possibly
> PCMCIA problem at software re-insert of card (which never was taken
> out *physically*).
>
> If I pull the cardbus card out, make sure the "dhcpcd eth0" has
>
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 11:13:48AM +, David Ford wrote:
> > > The three cardbus cards are slightly different in numerous ways. For
> > > them they normally fault with an APM event, an eject/insert cycle via
> > > software will reset hem and a link down/up won't fix it. For the PCI
> >
Matti Aarnio wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 10:48:16AM +, David Ford wrote:
> > The three cardbus cards are slightly different in numerous ways. For
> > them they normally fault with an APM event, an eject/insert cycle via
> > software will reset hem and a link down/up won't fix it. For
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 10:48:16AM +, David Ford wrote:
> The three cardbus cards are slightly different in numerous ways. For
> them they normally fault with an APM event, an eject/insert cycle via
> software will reset hem and a link down/up won't fix it. For the PCI
> cards most times a
> > Do the tulip driver updates address the increasingly common NETDEV timeout
> > repots?
>
> In general you can answer this yourself by reading
> drivers/net/tulip/ChangeLog.
>
> I don't see increasingly common timeout reports.. with which hardware?
> They are likely on the newer LinkSys 4.1
Do the tulip driver updates address the increasingly common NETDEV timeout
repots?
In general you can answer this yourself by reading
drivers/net/tulip/ChangeLog.
I don't see increasingly common timeout reports.. with which hardware?
They are likely on the newer LinkSys 4.1 cards, and
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 10:48:16AM +, David Ford wrote:
The three cardbus cards are slightly different in numerous ways. For
them they normally fault with an APM event, an eject/insert cycle via
software will reset hem and a link down/up won't fix it. For the PCI
cards most times a link
Matti Aarnio wrote:
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 10:48:16AM +, David Ford wrote:
The three cardbus cards are slightly different in numerous ways. For
them they normally fault with an APM event, an eject/insert cycle via
software will reset hem and a link down/up won't fix it. For the PCI
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 11:13:48AM +, David Ford wrote:
The three cardbus cards are slightly different in numerous ways. For
them they normally fault with an APM event, an eject/insert cycle via
software will reset hem and a link down/up won't fix it. For the PCI
The PCI
Matti Aarnio wrote:
I think they are separate problems.
The first is power-management suspend/resume issue, and possibly
PCMCIA problem at software re-insert of card (which never was taken
out *physically*).
If I pull the cardbus card out, make sure the "dhcpcd eth0" has
died
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Garzik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Do the tulip driver updates address the increasingly common
NETDEV timeout
repots?
I don't see increasingly common timeout reports.. with which
hardware?
They are likely on the newer LinkSys 4.1 cards, and
Jonathan Earle wrote:
Have you looked at the packet loss issue on the Znyx 4port cards? Even
using the latest tulip driver, packet loss is still apparent with moderate
loads.
I replied privately; but I just wanted to add that bug reports for the
in-kernel Tulip driver should be sent to the
David Ford wrote:
Do the tulip driver updates address the increasingly common NETDEV timeout
repots?
In general you can answer this yourself by reading
drivers/net/tulip/ChangeLog.
I don't see increasingly common timeout reports.. with which hardware?
They are likely on the
Jeff Garzik wrote:
David Ford wrote:
Linus Torvalds wrote:
The ChangeLog may not be 100% complete. The physically big things are the
PPC and ACPI updates, even if most people won't notice.
Linus
pre10:
- got a few too-new R128 #defines in
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Any technical reason why the background page aging fix was not applied?
Because I have not heard anybody claim that it makes a huge difference..
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Any technical reason why the background page aging fix was not applied?
Because I have not heard anybody claim that it makes a huge difference..
Linus,
If it could help speed up the page_list
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote:
Just my nickel on the issue.
Andre,
This patch I'm talking about is for a different issue from what was
discussed in the IO clustering thread.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Any technical reason why the background page aging fix was not applied?
Because I have not heard anybody claim that it makes a huge difference..
Linus,
Marcelo's changes make a difference here - enought
David Ford wrote:
>
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > The ChangeLog may not be 100% complete. The physically big things are the
> > PPC and ACPI updates, even if most people won't notice.
> >
> > Linus
> >
> >
> >
> > pre10:
> > - got a few too-new R128 #defines in the Radeon
Any technical reason why the background page aging fix was not applied?
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> The ChangeLog may not be 100% complete. The physically big things are the
> PPC and ACPI updates, even if most people won't notice.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I am having ACPI problems with a dell inspiron 5000e, I hear it has a
broken implementation of APM, so could quite possibly have a broken ACPI
also. When ACPI is enabled in the kernel (-pre10 and earlier ones also)
the system soft-hangs after
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> The ChangeLog may not be 100% complete. The physically big things are the
> PPC and ACPI updates, even if most people won't notice.
>
> Linus
>
>
>
> pre10:
> - got a few too-new R128 #defines in the Radeon merge. Fix.
> - tulip driver update from
The ChangeLog may not be 100% complete. The physically big things are the
PPC and ACPI updates, even if most people won't notice.
Linus
pre10:
- got a few too-new R128 #defines in the Radeon merge. Fix.
- tulip driver update from Jeff Garzik
- more cpq and DAC elevator
The ChangeLog may not be 100% complete. The physically big things are the
PPC and ACPI updates, even if most people won't notice.
Linus
pre10:
- got a few too-new R128 #defines in the Radeon merge. Fix.
- tulip driver update from Jeff Garzik
- more cpq and DAC elevator
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I am having ACPI problems with a dell inspiron 5000e, I hear it has a
broken implementation of APM, so could quite possibly have a broken ACPI
also. When ACPI is enabled in the kernel (-pre10 and earlier ones also)
the system soft-hangs after
Any technical reason why the background page aging fix was not applied?
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
The ChangeLog may not be 100% complete. The physically big things are the
PPC and ACPI updates, even if most people won't notice.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
David Ford wrote:
Linus Torvalds wrote:
The ChangeLog may not be 100% complete. The physically big things are the
PPC and ACPI updates, even if most people won't notice.
Linus
pre10:
- got a few too-new R128 #defines in the Radeon merge. Fix.
-
35 matches
Mail list logo
