Hi Rafael,
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 09:38:46PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.31. Please verify if it still should be
Hello Jens,
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 21:55 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.30 and
Hi.
I suppose this is still valid. I had to work around it by rfkill-ing
the device during the suspend process and reenabling at resume time.
I can try to reproduce it with 2.6.31.1 if you want it.
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
This message has been
Hello Grant,
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 21:55 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.30 and
On Fri, Oct 02 2009, Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote:
Hello Jens,
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 21:55 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
The following bug entry is on the current
Hello Rafael,
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 21:26 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[Notes:
* Here's the first summary report of known regressions from 2.6.31. There's
not too many of them at the moment, which is nice.
* We're still getting quite a number of reports of regressions from 2.6.30
On Thursday 01 October 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31. Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either way).
Bug-Entry :
Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
On 10/1/09, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.30 and
On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 11:11:52AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Thursday 01 October 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31. Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either
On Friday 02 October 2009, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 11:11:52AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
My own feeling is that Bartlomiej is correct and that something has
changed since .29 and that on average we do have less higher order
areas available after the system has been in use for
Michael Tokarev wrote:
Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
On 10/1/09, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
On 10/2/09, Michael Tokarev m...@tls.msk.ru wrote:
Michael Tokarev wrote:
Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
On 10/1/09, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
The following bug entry
Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
On 10/2/09, Michael Tokarev m...@tls.msk.ru wrote:
Michael Tokarev wrote:
Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
On 10/1/09, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
Hi,
for me this bug is fixed by:
commit 42960a13001aa6df52ca9952ce996f94a744ea65
HID: completely remove apple mightymouse from blacklist
Cheers,
Jan
Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl writes:
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced
Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote:
If you add one more entry say Suspected commit : then it will be great
and will solve regressions much faster.
Will? Might.
You can request submitter to
submit 'suspected commit' by git bisect and also specify git bisect
links like : (for more information
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
This memory leak might exist in all releases since 23 Sep 2005.
[Michael Tokarev - Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 02:59:09PM +0400]
...
Please hold on for a while.
I switched to BZIP2, it booted fine. I switched back to LZMA -
and that one now boots too. Original bzImage, which were built
by the same compiler from the same source using the same
options reboots.
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31. Please verify if
On Friday 02 October 2009, Jiri Kosina wrote:
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
On Friday 02 October 2009, Fabio Comolli wrote:
Hi.
I suppose this is still valid. I had to work around it by rfkill-ing
the device during the suspend process and reenabling at resume time.
Thanks for the update.
I can try to reproduce it with 2.6.31.1 if you want it.
In fact I'm more
On Friday 02 October 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Fri, Oct 02 2009, Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote:
Hello Jens,
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 21:55 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and
On Friday 02 October 2009, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
This memory leak might exist in all releases since 23 Sep 2005.
On Friday 02 October 2009, Sascha Hauer wrote:
Hi Rafael,
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 09:38:46PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
On Friday 02 October 2009, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 21:26 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14214
Subject : BUG at drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c:1108!
Submitter : Plamen Petrov pvp-l...@fs.ru.acad.bg
On Thu, 01 October 2009 Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31. Please verify if
On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 10:32:26AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 11:11:52AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
My own feeling is that Bartlomiej is correct and that something has changed
since .29 and that on average we do have less higher order areas available
after the system
On Friday 02 October 2009, Bruno Prémont wrote:
On Thu, 01 October 2009 Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known
On 1 Oct 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki stated:
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31. Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either way).
The patch fixes it.
Bug-Entry :
On Friday 02 October 2009, Nix wrote:
On 1 Oct 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki stated:
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31. Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either way).
The patch fixes it.
Hi.
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Friday 02 October 2009, Fabio Comolli wrote:
Hi.
I suppose this is still valid. I had to work around it by rfkill-ing
the device during the suspend process and reenabling at resume time.
Thanks for the update.
I
On Friday 02 October 2009, Fabio Comolli wrote:
Hi.
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Friday 02 October 2009, Fabio Comolli wrote:
Hi.
I suppose this is still valid. I had to work around it by rfkill-ing
the device during the suspend process and
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 14:31, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Friday 02 October 2009, Nix wrote:
On 1 Oct 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki stated:
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31. Please verify if it still should
be
33 matches
Mail list logo
