Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
On 1/28/06, Mattia Dongili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 08:02:37PM +0100, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 04:28:48PM -0800, Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
Okay I reproduced the issue on 2.6.15.1 (with S1 sleep) and was able
to show that
On 1/28/06, Mattia Dongili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 08:02:37PM +0100, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 04:28:48PM -0800, Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
> >
> > > Okay I reproduced the issue on 2.6.15.1 (with S1 sleep) and was able
> > > to show that my patch t
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 08:02:37PM +0100, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 04:28:48PM -0800, Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
>
> > Okay I reproduced the issue on 2.6.15.1 (with S1 sleep) and was able
> > to show that my patch that just removes e100_init_hw works okay for
> > me. Let me k
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 08:02:37PM +0100, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> Will be in the next SUSE betas, so if anything breaks, we'll notice
> it.
I doubt it. As Jesse mentioned, e100_hw_init is called from e100_up,
so the call from e100_resume was really superfluous.
Olaf
--
Olaf Kirch | --- o ---
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 04:28:48PM -0800, Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
> Okay I reproduced the issue on 2.6.15.1 (with S1 sleep) and was able
> to show that my patch that just removes e100_init_hw works okay for
> me. Let me know how it goes for you, I think this is a good fix.
worked for me in the
On St 25-01-06 16:28:48, Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
> On 1/25/06, Jesse Brandeburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 1/25/06, Olaf Kirch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 10:02:40AM +0100, Olaf Kirch wrote:
> > > > I'm not sure what the right fix would be. e100_resume would prob
On 1/25/06, Jesse Brandeburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/25/06, Olaf Kirch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 10:02:40AM +0100, Olaf Kirch wrote:
> > > I'm not sure what the right fix would be. e100_resume would probably
> > > have to call e100_alloc_cbs early on, while e1
On 1/25/06, Olaf Kirch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 11:37:40AM -0800, Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
> > its an interesting patch, but it raises the question why does
> > e100_init_hw need to be called at all in resume? I looked back
> > through our history and that init_hw call h
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 11:37:40AM -0800, Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
> its an interesting patch, but it raises the question why does
> e100_init_hw need to be called at all in resume? I looked back
> through our history and that init_hw call has always been there. I
> think its incorrect, but its ta
On 1/25/06, Olaf Kirch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 10:02:40AM +0100, Olaf Kirch wrote:
> > I'm not sure what the right fix would be. e100_resume would probably
> > have to call e100_alloc_cbs early on, while e100_up should avoid
> > calling it a second time if nic->cbs_avai
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 10:02:40AM +0100, Olaf Kirch wrote:
> I'm not sure what the right fix would be. e100_resume would probably
> have to call e100_alloc_cbs early on, while e100_up should avoid
> calling it a second time if nic->cbs_avail != 0. A tentative patch
> for testing is attached.
Repo
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 12:21:42AM +0100, Mattia Dongili wrote:
> I experienced the same today, I was planning to get a photo tomorrow :)
> I'm running 2.6.16-rc1-mm2 and the last working kernel was 2.6.15-mm4
> (didn't try .16-rc1-mm1 being scared of the reiserfs breakage).
I think that's because
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 11:59:19PM +0100, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> Hi,
> since 2.6.16rc1-git3, e100 dies on resume (regardless if from disk, ram or
> runtime powermanagement). Unfortunately i only have a bad photo of
> the oops right now, it is available from
> https://bugzilla.novell.com/attachmen
13 matches
Mail list logo
