On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 17:01 -0700, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> > - request_module() is icky. I keep wanting to get rid of that
> > function, and really don't want to see any further users get added.
> > But that's just my feeling, if there's no other way to do this, I
> > don't mind.
>
>
On Sun, 2005-02-06 at 21:15 -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> And I didn't see an "unusual_devs.h" entry for it, but it does
> look to need the CONFIG_USB_STORAGE_HP8200e support, which I
> see is labeled "experimental". I don't know how solid the
> support for that is. But I see Greg's checked in
On Fri, 2005-02-04 at 12:41 -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> On Friday 04 February 2005 4:16 am, Rusty Russell wrote:
> >
> > Is USB/SCSI just terminally broken under 2.6?
>
> I don't think so, but there are problems that appear in some
> hardware configs and not
OK, I recently made the mistake of buying a USB case with a drive in it
and putting my home directory on it. I have since then had multiple
ext3 and ext2 errors: 2.6.8, 2.6.9, 2.6.10 and 2.6.11-rc3 all exhibit
the problem within an hour of stress (untarring a fresh kernel tree, cp
-al'ing to apply
internal counter, and doesn't use the
module refcounts at all. On module_exit, it spins until that count
hits zero. Bad, huh?
Hope that clarifies,
Rusty.
--
Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.
---
This S
On Sun, 15 Sep 2002 11:06:09 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 15 Sep 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >
> > Let's try a different show of hands: How many users would be happier if
> > they knew that kernel developers are using modern techniques to improve
> > the
of these "everything knows" things which many people
didn't know.
So, please do really fix your code! The best way to fit these
guarantees is to simply make it an "unsigned long" if you're going to
do bitops on it.
Ho
