From: Michael J. Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In current release kernels the md module (Software RAID) uses a static array
(dev_t[128]) to store partition/device info temporarily for autostart.
This patch replaces that static array with a list.
Signed-off-by: Michael J. Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
On Monday 27 August 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:16:21 -0700 Michael J. Evans wrote:
=
--- linux/drivers/md/md.c.orig 2007-08-21 03:19:42.511576248 -0700
+++ linux/drivers/md/md.c 2007-08-21
Michael J. Evans wrote:
On Monday 27 August 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:16:21 -0700 Michael J. Evans wrote:
=
--- linux/drivers/md/md.c.orig 2007-08-21 03:19:42.511576248 -0700
+++ linux/drivers/md/md.c
Since CONFIG_RAMFS is currently hard-selected to y, and since
Documentation/filesystems/ramfs-rootfs-initramfs.txt reads as follows:
The amount of code required to implement ramfs is tiny, because all
the work is done by the existing Linux caching infrastructure.
Basically, you're mounting the
Hi,
Stefan Becker wrote:
while trying to debug a hibernation/rtc_cmos alarm wakeup problem in
2.6.22 (or later) I noticed that the latest kernel crashes (or gets
stuck sometimes) during boot after the message:
SMP alternatives: switching to UP code
Retested with 2.6.23-rc3-git10. Same
Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
My system is a SunFire x4100 (x86_64) with 16G of RAM and 32G of swap
in a single partition. I have an application which consumes a lot of
memory, and after a few hours the oom-killer kills it.
This would not be surprising, except a) the machine still has 27G of
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Al Boldi wrote:
No need for framebuffer. All you need is X using the X.org vesa-driver.
Then start gears like this:
# gears gears gears
Then lay them out side by side to see the periodic stallings for ~10sec.
I don't think this is a
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Al Boldi wrote:
No need for framebuffer. All you need is X using the X.org vesa-driver.
Then start gears like this:
# gears gears gears
Then lay them out side by side to see the periodic stallings for ~10sec.
I don't think this is a good test.
Why?
If
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 07:33:08 +0200 Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again, ARRAY_SIZE() would be clearer here.
No, this is only do this 16 times, no corresponding table :).
OK, poorly chosen example. But there are lots of others, like:
+
+ for (i = 0; i 59; i++) {
+
Andrew Morton napsal(a):
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 07:33:08 +0200 Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again, ARRAY_SIZE() would be clearer here.
No, this is only do this 16 times, no corresponding table :).
OK, poorly chosen example. But there are lots of others, like:
Yes, you mentioned them
Andrew Morton napsal(a):
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 07:09:02 -0700
Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ retok = stk11xx_check_device(dev, 500);
+ if (retok != 1) {
+ dev_err(dev-udev-dev, load microcode fail\n);
+ return -EIO;
+
901 - 911 of 911 matches
Mail list logo
