On Tuesday 27 March 2007 01:28, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> Subsequent to that Con suggested testing a refactored RSDL patch. That
> patch seemed to work on the machine at hand, so tests have been
> submitted for all the affected machines.
>
>
Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
>
>> This is about the only place I can see the run_list is looked at unlocked.
>> Can
>> you see if this simple patch helps? The debug patch is unnecessary now.
>
> Tests queued with this patch. Will let you know.
That patch had no effect on the
Con Kolivas wrote:
> This is about the only place I can see the run_list is looked at unlocked. Can
> you see if this simple patch helps? The debug patch is unnecessary now.
Tests queued with this patch. Will let you know.
-apw
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
Con Kolivas wrote:
This is about the only place I can see the run_list is looked at unlocked. Can
you see if this simple patch helps? The debug patch is unnecessary now.
Tests queued with this patch. Will let you know.
-apw
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
Andy Whitcroft wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
This is about the only place I can see the run_list is looked at unlocked.
Can
you see if this simple patch helps? The debug patch is unnecessary now.
Tests queued with this patch. Will let you know.
That patch had no effect on the problem.
...
On Tuesday 27 March 2007 01:28, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
Andy Whitcroft wrote:
Subsequent to that Con suggested testing a refactored RSDL patch. That
patch seemed to work on the machine at hand, so tests have been
submitted for all the affected machines.
On Monday 26 March 2007 08:49, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Monday 26 March 2007 04:28, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> > On 3/24/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > kernel/sched.c | 51
> > > +++ 1 file changed, 51
> > > insertions(+)
> >
> >
On Monday 26 March 2007 04:28, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> On 3/24/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > kernel/sched.c | 51
> > +++ 1 file changed, 51
> > insertions(+)
>
> 2.6.21-rc4-mm1 also fails for me.
>
> I tried pure 2.6.21-rc4-mm1,
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:28:57 +0100 "Torsten Kaiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/24/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > kernel/sched.c | 51 +++
> > 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+)
>
> 2.6.21-rc4-mm1 also fails for me.
>
> I
On 3/24/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
kernel/sched.c | 51 +++
1 file changed, 51 insertions(+)
2.6.21-rc4-mm1 also fails for me.
I tried pure 2.6.21-rc4-mm1, +hotfixes, +hotfixes+rsdl33 and at last
also added above debug patch.
Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Saturday 24 March 2007 08:45, Con Kolivas wrote:
>> On Friday 23 March 2007 23:28, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>>> Andy Whitcroft wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Friday 23 March 2007 05:17, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>> Ok, I have yet a third x86_64 machine is is blowing
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Saturday 24 March 2007 08:45, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Friday 23 March 2007 23:28, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
Andy Whitcroft wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Friday 23 March 2007 05:17, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
Ok, I have yet a third x86_64 machine is is blowing up with the
latest
On 3/24/07, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
kernel/sched.c | 51 +++
1 file changed, 51 insertions(+)
2.6.21-rc4-mm1 also fails for me.
I tried pure 2.6.21-rc4-mm1, +hotfixes, +hotfixes+rsdl33 and at last
also added above debug patch.
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:28:57 +0100 Torsten Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/24/07, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
kernel/sched.c | 51 +++
1 file changed, 51 insertions(+)
2.6.21-rc4-mm1 also fails for me.
I tried pure
On Monday 26 March 2007 04:28, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
On 3/24/07, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
kernel/sched.c | 51
+++ 1 file changed, 51
insertions(+)
2.6.21-rc4-mm1 also fails for me.
I tried pure 2.6.21-rc4-mm1, +hotfixes,
On Monday 26 March 2007 08:49, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Monday 26 March 2007 04:28, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
On 3/24/07, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
kernel/sched.c | 51
+++ 1 file changed, 51
insertions(+)
2.6.21-rc4-mm1 also
On Saturday 24 March 2007 08:45, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Friday 23 March 2007 23:28, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > > Con Kolivas wrote:
> > >> On Friday 23 March 2007 05:17, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > >>> Ok, I have yet a third x86_64 machine is is blowing up with the
> > >>>
On Saturday 24 March 2007 08:45, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Friday 23 March 2007 23:28, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
Andy Whitcroft wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Friday 23 March 2007 05:17, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
Ok, I have yet a third x86_64 machine is is blowing up with the
latest
18 matches
Mail list logo