On Tuesday 07 June 2005 21:47, Nix wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] suggested tentatively:
> > On Tuesday 07 June 2005 18:21, Nix wrote:
> >> OK, so it's a -static TT build that's failing?
> >
> > Exactly.
>
> Built, with a randomly selected .config (that is, a .config I use for
> oth
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] suggested tentatively:
> On Tuesday 07 June 2005 18:21, Nix wrote:
>> OK, so it's a -static TT build that's failing?
> Exactly.
Built, with a randomly selected .config (that is, a .config I use for
other things, not a .config with the values set at random!)
N
Resending to list-only with less attachments:
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 18:21, Nix wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] gibbered uncontrollably:
> > On Tuesday 07 June 2005 17:54, Nix wrote:
> >> On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> >> > On Tuesday 07 June 2005 16:31, Nix wrote:
>
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] gibbered uncontrollably:
> On Tuesday 07 June 2005 17:54, Nix wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>> > On Tuesday 07 June 2005 16:31, Nix wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 07 Jun 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] gibbered uncontrollably:
>> >> > Ok, I hope there is
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 17:54, Nix wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > On Tuesday 07 June 2005 16:31, Nix wrote:
> >> On Tue, 07 Jun 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] gibbered uncontrollably:
> >> > Ok, I hope there is still somebody using UML on a NPTL-only system.
> >> > The workaround
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Just give me the time to actually upload the tree, which I'm doing at the
> moment, and forgive me if I added anything ruining the compilation while I
> was working on x86_64 host.
Patch mis-rolled, I guess: arch/um/scripts/Makefile.rules is missing,
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> On Tuesday 07 June 2005 16:31, Nix wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] gibbered uncontrollably:
>> > Ok, I hope there is still somebody using UML on a NPTL-only system. The
>> > workaround suggested last time was to avoid enabling CONFIG_MO
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 16:31, Nix wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jun 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] gibbered uncontrollably:
> > Ok, I hope there is still somebody using UML on a NPTL-only system. The
> > workaround suggested last time was to avoid enabling CONFIG_MODE_TT; now
> > I think I've got over this problem
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] gibbered uncontrollably:
> Ok, I hope there is still somebody using UML on a NPTL-only system. The
> workaround suggested last time was to avoid enabling CONFIG_MODE_TT; now I
> think I've got over this problem, too. So, when I release 2.6.11.8-bs6 (which
>
This occurrence of free_irq_by_irq_and_dev() was missed when converting UML to
the use of hw_controller_type->release.
Signed-off-by: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
linux-2.6.git-paolo/arch/um/drivers/line.c |1 -
1 files changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff -puN arch/um/dri
From: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Wedgwood
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
As suggested by Chris, we can make the "just added" method ->release
conditional to UML only (better: to archs requesting it, i.e. only UML
currently), so that other a
11 matches
Mail list logo
