[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Gesendet: Freitag, 14. September 2007 19:22
> An: Jurzitza, Dieter
> Cc: sparclinux@vger.kernel.org
> Betreff: Re: netconsole support for kernel 2.4 / sunhme patch
>
>
> From: "Jurzitza, Dieter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri,
Dear listmembers,
and, naturally, it should to be
> + happy_meal_interrupt (dev->irq, dev, NULL);
> + enable_irq(dev->irq);
> +}
> +#endif
instead of sis900_interrupt (dev->irq, dev NULL);
Thanks & take care
Dieter Jurzitza
--
HARM
Dear listmembers,
could some kind soul tell me whether the following patch is too naive in order
to try to add netconsole support to the sunhme - module?
Many thanks in advance,
take care
Dieter Jurzitza
--- linux/drivers/net/sunhme.c.original 2007-09-14 07:45:24.0 +0200
+++ linux/driv
Dear Mr. Miller,
dear listmembers,
ok ok, 2.4 is not that interesting any more - but would you kindly consider
something for 2.4 too in case you touch 2.6 in this regard?
0: 181134480 0 timer:dead
on 2.4 doesn't look ok, either.
But, nothing really serious, just in case you'd find
Dear listmembers,
any ideas, comments on this? The only thing I actually did was running xosview
from *userland* and I can crash my system within a very short time.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] MHz, SMP, Kernel 2.4.29-SMP.
Thanks for any efforts in advance,
take care
Dieter Jurzitza
--
___
Dear listmembers,
one more came to my head,
when doing either kmalloc() or compat_alloc_user_space in
arch/sparc64/kernel/sys_sparc32.c, another error stems from the fact that in
len * sizeof (struct kernel_syms) the sizeof operator returns 64 Byte (60 char
+ one long(=4)) whereas in the 64 Bit
, 2005 5:44 PM
To: Jurzitza, Dieter
Cc: sparclinux@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: size-differences of long(userspace) / long(kernel)
**
We don't use kmalloc() always, in fact most often we use alloc_user_space()
(named compat_alloc_user_space()) so that the limits are the
Hi folks,
nevertheless we may run into space issues because structures may grow on their
way from userland to kernel-country, thereby kmalloc() calls are subject to
earlier failures, as the maximum size of allocable memory for kmalloc() remains
the same.
See i. e. linux/include/linux/module.h,
Dear listmembers,
seing the communication between Jurij and Dave I took a glance into the 2.4.29
- tree and found the identical code segment as discussed below. This tells me
that 2.4.X is supposed to suffer from the same issues as you tracked down for
2.6.X, isn't it? However, what I did not fi
