On Friday 14 July 2006 21:51, Samuel Korpi wrote:
> On 7/14/06, Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 08:19:16AM +0300, Samuel Korpi wrote:
> > > Attached.
> >
> > Try the patch below. It also fixes a bunch of other arch declarations,
> > one of which faked me into an in
On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 08:59:10PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> Sorry, since when does the udelay interface means "cycles to wait"? It's very
> strange... and the i386 prototype is very likely correct...
The i386 prototype is
extern void __const_udelay(unsigned long usecs);
while the imp
Alle 20:58, venerdì, 14. luglio 2006, hai scritto:
> That kernel came from my development tree, which had the TLS patches
> in it. However, I don't fiddle the kernel version to reflect that.
> So, that kernel claimed to be 2.6.16, even though it was really 2.6.16
> + TLS patches + a bunch of other
On 7/14/06, Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 08:19:16AM +0300, Samuel Korpi wrote:
> > Attached.
>
> Try the patch below. It also fixes a bunch of other arch declarations, one
> of which faked me into an incorrect implementation of __const_udelay.
>
Thanks. I'll try i
On Friday 14 July 2006 19:58, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 08:19:16AM +0300, Samuel Korpi wrote:
> > Attached.
>
> Try the patch below. It also fixes a bunch of other arch declarations, one
> of which faked me into an incorrect implementation of __const_udelay.
Sorry, since when does
On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 07:20:10PM +0200, Josef Spillner wrote:
> Alle 21:23, gioved?, 13. luglio 2006, Jeff Dike ha scritto:
> > The combination boots fine here - I wouldn't have put them up otherwise.
>
> But now I'm confused - one other mail stated to use 2.6.17 because versions
> before this
On Friday 14 July 2006 19:20, Josef Spillner wrote:
> Alle 21:23, giovedì, 13. luglio 2006, Jeff Dike ha scritto:
> > The combination boots fine here - I wouldn't have put them up otherwise.
>
> But now I'm confused - one other mail stated to use 2.6.17 because versions
> before this weren't TLS-aw
On Thursday 13 July 2006 21:37, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 09:05:22AM +0800, Miao Qingjun wrote:
> > I start "gdb uml", "b sys_init_module", then "run",
> > but gdb is not break at sys_init_module() when I insmod LKM?
> > Why? How can I do it?
>
> Some versions of gdb don't work wel
On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 08:19:16AM +0300, Samuel Korpi wrote:
> Attached.
Try the patch below. It also fixes a bunch of other arch declarations, one
of which faked me into an incorrect implementation of __const_udelay.
Jeff
Index: linux-2.6.17/include/asm-i386/de
Alle 21:23, giovedì, 13. luglio 2006, Jeff Dike ha scritto:
> The combination boots fine here - I wouldn't have put them up otherwise.
But now I'm confused - one other mail stated to use 2.6.17 because versions
before this weren't TLS-aware.
> What's your host?
It's still the same stock Debian
Exmo(s). Sr(s).,
Gostaria de apresentar a V. Exas. o sitio de empregos online gratuito para
empresas e candidatos
www.empregos.pt
Com os melhores cumprimentos,
Empregos.pt
-
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to
11 matches
Mail list logo
