Nick Piggin wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When a task is put to sleep, it is dequeued from the runqueue
while it is still running. The problem is that the runqueue
lock can be dropped and retaken in schedule() before the task
actually schedules off, and wait_ta
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When a task is put to sleep, it is dequeued from the runqueue
while it is still running. The problem is that the runqueue
lock can be dropped and retaken in schedule() before the task
actually schedules off, and wait_task_inactive did not
* Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When a task is put to sleep, it is dequeued from the runqueue
> while it is still running. The problem is that the runqueue
> lock can be dropped and retaken in schedule() before the task
> actually schedules off, and wait_task_inactive did not account
>
Good evening, all,
Just for reference, if I have the UDF filesystem turned on, I get
this error at the end of the compile:
LD .tmp_vmlinux1
/usr/lib/libc.a(mktime.o)(.rodata+0x0): multiple definition of
`__mon_yday'
fs/built-in.o(.rodata+0x36a0):fs/buffer.c:331: first defined here
collec
Nick Piggin wrote:
Something like the following (untested) extension of Bodo's work
could be the minimal fix for 2.6.11. As I've said though, I'd
consider it a hack and prefer to do something about the locking.
That could be done after 2.6.11 though. Depends how you feel.
I think this is the right
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rob Landley wrote:
| As of yesterday afternoon, the UML build still breaks in
sys_call_table.c,
| here's the patch I submitted earlier (which got me past the break when I
| tried it). Last week, this produced what seemed like a working UML.
|
| Now the
As of yesterday afternoon, the UML build still breaks in sys_call_table.c,
here's the patch I submitted earlier (which got me past the break when I
tried it). Last week, this produced what seemed like a working UML.
Now there's a second break in mm/memory.c: the move to four level page
tables c
On Friday 04 February 2005 11:48 am, Ashwin Kumar Tanugula wrote:
> Hi!
> I have read that uml port to ppc is done. Can somebody tell me if the port
> is to a 32-bit architecture or a 64-bit architecture. Where can i find
> more details about the uml port to ppc?
> Thanks,
> Ashwin.
http://usermod
On Saturday 05 February 2005 09:46 am, Sven Köhler wrote:
> > read Linus's "I'm a bastard" speech?
>
> No, i don't know that speech.
You obviously didn't google for "linus bastard speech", either. It's the
first hit.
>> You know, ever since the release of the BSD source code in 1992 totally
>>
I feel like this is a slap in Jeff's face, since i thought
that UML will be developed as the first choice in virtualizations
techniques.
Yup, just like the inclusion of reiserfs in the kernel is a slap in the face
to ext3. Obviously they did it just to be insulting, didn't you read Linus's
"I'
10 matches
Mail list logo
