On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 11:54:32AM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 12:42:02AM -0700, Natalie Protasevich wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Then I think bugzilla needs:
>>> adding more categories such as security,
>> "security" would be a flag like "regression",
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 11:54:32AM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 12:42:02AM -0700, Natalie Protasevich wrote:
...
Then I think bugzilla needs:
adding more categories such as security,
security would be a flag like regression, not a category.
On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 22:32 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Saturday 01 September 2007 21:51:42 Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Here is a patch to fix the NMI watchdog problem on CoreDuo processor.
> > I think we still need Daniel's patch to make the error path (when you
> > are stuck)
On Saturday 01 September 2007 21:51:42 Stephane Eranian wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Here is a patch to fix the NMI watchdog problem on CoreDuo processor.
> I think we still need Daniel's patch to make the error path (when you
> are stuck) do the right cleanup.
Thanks.
Can that other patch please be
Hello,
Here is a patch to fix the NMI watchdog problem on CoreDuo processor.
I think we still need Daniel's patch to make the error path (when you
are stuck) do the right cleanup.
Changelog:
- fix the NMI watchdog on Intel CoreDuo processor whereby the
kernel would get stuck
> I'm satisfied that Stephane's last patch fixes it ..
Great. Can someone send a final version with proper Changelog and Signed-off-by
please? Thanks.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo
> If you look at the LOC values you'll notice a lot of time has passed,
> with only one NMI and on only one cpu ..
>
> It's possible this is something else completely tho ..
It only ticks when the CPU is not idle. If you want to see the "operating
frequency" run a main(){for(;;;);} for each
If you look at the LOC values you'll notice a lot of time has passed,
with only one NMI and on only one cpu ..
It's possible this is something else completely tho ..
It only ticks when the CPU is not idle. If you want to see the operating
frequency run a main(){for(;;;);} for each core.
I'm satisfied that Stephane's last patch fixes it ..
Great. Can someone send a final version with proper Changelog and Signed-off-by
please? Thanks.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info
Hello,
Here is a patch to fix the NMI watchdog problem on CoreDuo processor.
I think we still need Daniel's patch to make the error path (when you
are stuck) do the right cleanup.
Changelog:
- fix the NMI watchdog on Intel CoreDuo processor whereby the
kernel would get stuck
On Saturday 01 September 2007 21:51:42 Stephane Eranian wrote:
Hello,
Here is a patch to fix the NMI watchdog problem on CoreDuo processor.
I think we still need Daniel's patch to make the error path (when you
are stuck) do the right cleanup.
Thanks.
Can that other patch please be
On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 22:32 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Saturday 01 September 2007 21:51:42 Stephane Eranian wrote:
Hello,
Here is a patch to fix the NMI watchdog problem on CoreDuo processor.
I think we still need Daniel's patch to make the error path (when you
are stuck) do the right
On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 03:00 +0200, Björn Steinbrink wrote:
> On 2007.08.31 17:24:46 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 20:06 +0200, Björn Steinbrink wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > something to do with the nmi hertz adjustment that happens after
> > > > check_nmi_watchdog() ..
> > >
>
On 2007.08.31 17:24:46 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 20:06 +0200, Björn Steinbrink wrote:
>
>
> > > something to do with the nmi hertz adjustment that happens after
> > > check_nmi_watchdog() ..
> >
> > Hm hm, does the same thing (watchdog stuck after check) happen with
>
On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 20:06 +0200, Björn Steinbrink wrote:
> > something to do with the nmi hertz adjustment that happens after
> > check_nmi_watchdog() ..
>
> Hm hm, does the same thing (watchdog stuck after check) happen with
> older kernels, ie. those before Stephane's changeset that made it
On 2007.08.31 09:35:23 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 09:21 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > In this patch, the setup_*() routine now extract the MSR from the wd_ops
> > to copy them into the nmi_watchdog_ctlblk. This is not done for P4 because
> > of the special and ugly
On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 09:21 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 07:43:20AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 14:05 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > > Daniel,
> >
> > > Yes, I realized I missed a small detail in the switch statement.
> > >
Daniel,
On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 07:43:20AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 14:05 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > Daniel,
>
> > Yes, I realized I missed a small detail in the switch statement.
> > Could you try the new version?
>
> This patch still has the stuck NMI ..
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 14:05 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> Daniel,
> Yes, I realized I missed a small detail in the switch statement.
> Could you try the new version?
This patch still has the stuck NMI .. Essentially the same thing that
happened without the patch..
Feel free to keep sending
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 14:05 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
Daniel,
Yes, I realized I missed a small detail in the switch statement.
Could you try the new version?
This patch still has the stuck NMI .. Essentially the same thing that
happened without the patch..
Feel free to keep sending
Daniel,
On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 07:43:20AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 14:05 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
Daniel,
Yes, I realized I missed a small detail in the switch statement.
Could you try the new version?
This patch still has the stuck NMI .. Essentially
On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 09:21 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
Daniel,
On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 07:43:20AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 14:05 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
Daniel,
Yes, I realized I missed a small detail in the switch statement.
Could you try the
On 2007.08.31 09:35:23 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 09:21 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
In this patch, the setup_*() routine now extract the MSR from the wd_ops
to copy them into the nmi_watchdog_ctlblk. This is not done for P4 because
of the special and ugly case of
On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 20:06 +0200, Björn Steinbrink wrote:
something to do with the nmi hertz adjustment that happens after
check_nmi_watchdog() ..
Hm hm, does the same thing (watchdog stuck after check) happen with
older kernels, ie. those before Stephane's changeset that made it use
On 2007.08.31 17:24:46 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 20:06 +0200, Björn Steinbrink wrote:
something to do with the nmi hertz adjustment that happens after
check_nmi_watchdog() ..
Hm hm, does the same thing (watchdog stuck after check) happen with
older
On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 03:00 +0200, Björn Steinbrink wrote:
On 2007.08.31 17:24:46 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 20:06 +0200, Björn Steinbrink wrote:
something to do with the nmi hertz adjustment that happens after
check_nmi_watchdog() ..
Hm hm, does the
Daniel,
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 06:21:59PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 14:24 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>
>
> > Now on Core Duo, there is no PEBS anyway, so it is okay to use counter 0
> > for NMI. The problem is that the detection code in perfctr-watchdog.c
> >
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 12:42:02AM -0700, Natalie Protasevich wrote:
...
Then I think bugzilla needs:
adding more categories such as security,
"security" would be a flag like "regression", not a category.
system calls (lots of
implementation suggestions for posix and
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 04:59:47PM -0700, Natalie Protasevich wrote:
> > Bugzilla is for tracking bugs, not for discussing possible
> > kernel features.
>
> True, but some of them are categorized as bugs from the reporter's
> prospective, when they say "man page says" or "according to POSIX it's
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 04:59:47PM -0700, Natalie Protasevich wrote:
Bugzilla is for tracking bugs, not for discussing possible
kernel features.
True, but some of them are categorized as bugs from the reporter's
prospective, when they say man page says or according to POSIX it's
wrong.
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 12:42:02AM -0700, Natalie Protasevich wrote:
...
Then I think bugzilla needs:
adding more categories such as security,
security would be a flag like regression, not a category.
system calls (lots of
implementation suggestions for posix and
Daniel,
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 06:21:59PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 14:24 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
Now on Core Duo, there is no PEBS anyway, so it is okay to use counter 0
for NMI. The problem is that the detection code in perfctr-watchdog.c
treats a Core
On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 14:24 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> Now on Core Duo, there is no PEBS anyway, so it is okay to use counter 0
> for NMI. The problem is that the detection code in perfctr-watchdog.c
> treats a Core Duo and a Core 2 Duo the same way as they both have the
>
> Bugzilla is for tracking bugs, not for discussing possible
> kernel features.
True, but some of them are categorized as bugs from the reporter's
prospective, when they say "man page says" or "according to POSIX it's
wrong". I am going to push ones that are feature suggestions,
re-design
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 12:42:02AM -0700, Natalie Protasevich wrote:
>...
> Then I think bugzilla needs:
> adding more categories such as security,
"security" would be a flag like "regression", not a category.
> system calls (lots of
> implementation suggestions for posix and non-posix
Daniel,
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 01:13:44PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 12:46 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>
> > I think I found the problem. As I suspected, it seems there is an assymetry
> > between the 1st end 2nd counter (just like what they have on P6 core). Yet
> >
n 8/27/07, David Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/27/07, Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Now that I'm looking at the kernel bugzilla .. If you set the kernel
> > version to 2.6.22 and set the "Regression" check box you could denote
> > the fact that it's a regression in that
n 8/27/07, David Rees [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/27/07, Daniel Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now that I'm looking at the kernel bugzilla .. If you set the kernel
version to 2.6.22 and set the Regression check box you could denote
the fact that it's a regression in that kernel version
Daniel,
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 01:13:44PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 12:46 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
I think I found the problem. As I suspected, it seems there is an assymetry
between the 1st end 2nd counter (just like what they have on P6 core). Yet
for
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 12:42:02AM -0700, Natalie Protasevich wrote:
...
Then I think bugzilla needs:
adding more categories such as security,
security would be a flag like regression, not a category.
system calls (lots of
implementation suggestions for posix and non-posix ones),
...
Bugzilla is for tracking bugs, not for discussing possible
kernel features.
True, but some of them are categorized as bugs from the reporter's
prospective, when they say man page says or according to POSIX it's
wrong. I am going to push ones that are feature suggestions,
re-design suggestions,
On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 14:24 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
Now on Core Duo, there is no PEBS anyway, so it is okay to use counter 0
for NMI. The problem is that the detection code in perfctr-watchdog.c
treats a Core Duo and a Core 2 Duo the same way as they both have the
Here's a simpler patch that fixes the boot hang ..
We have to call off the IPI looping regardless of the check_nmi_watchdog
outcome..
Signed-off-by: Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Index: linux-2.6.22/arch/i386/kernel/nmi.c
===
On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 12:46 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> I think I found the problem. As I suspected, it seems there is an assymetry
> between the 1st end 2nd counter (just like what they have on P6 core). Yet
> for architectural perfmon v1, this restriction is supposed to be lifted.
>
>
Bjorn,
It looks like we need to revisit the patch that makes the NMI
watchdog use the 2nd counter (PERFREVTSEL1/PMC1) for architectural
perfmon.
The Intel Core Duo processor has a bug (AE49) with the enable bit of the 2nd
counter not working. The Core 2 Duo/Quad processors also implement
Daniel,
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 11:30:35AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
>
> Here is some output from my boot log,
>
> md: raid1 personality registered for level 1
> device-mapper: ioctl: 4.11.0-ioctl (2006-10-12) initialised: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ip_tables: (C) 2000-2006 Netfilter Core Team
> TCP
On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 10:05 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 07:34:44AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 02:12 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > > Daniel,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 04:07:54PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > >
Daniel,
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 07:34:44AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 02:12 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > Daniel,
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 04:07:54PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 15:55 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > >
> > > >
On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 02:12 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 04:07:54PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 15:55 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >
> > > Yet the model name looks strange. So we need to run one more test,
> > > as the
Daniel,
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 04:07:54PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 15:55 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>
> > Yet the model name looks strange. So we need to run one more test,
> > as the fam/model is not enough. What we need to check is whether or
> > not this
Daniel,
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 04:07:54PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 15:55 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
Yet the model name looks strange. So we need to run one more test,
as the fam/model is not enough. What we need to check is whether or
not this processor
On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 02:12 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
Daniel,
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 04:07:54PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 15:55 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
Yet the model name looks strange. So we need to run one more test,
as the fam/model is not
Daniel,
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 07:34:44AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 02:12 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
Daniel,
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 04:07:54PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 15:55 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
Yet the model name
On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 10:05 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
Daniel,
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 07:34:44AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 02:12 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
Daniel,
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 04:07:54PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
On Mon, 2007-08-27
Daniel,
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 11:30:35AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
Here is some output from my boot log,
md: raid1 personality registered for level 1
device-mapper: ioctl: 4.11.0-ioctl (2006-10-12) initialised: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ip_tables: (C) 2000-2006 Netfilter Core Team
TCP cubic
Bjorn,
It looks like we need to revisit the patch that makes the NMI
watchdog use the 2nd counter (PERFREVTSEL1/PMC1) for architectural
perfmon.
The Intel Core Duo processor has a bug (AE49) with the enable bit of the 2nd
counter not working. The Core 2 Duo/Quad processors also implement
On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 12:46 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
I think I found the problem. As I suspected, it seems there is an assymetry
between the 1st end 2nd counter (just like what they have on P6 core). Yet
for architectural perfmon v1, this restriction is supposed to be lifted.
Here's a simpler patch that fixes the boot hang ..
We have to call off the IPI looping regardless of the check_nmi_watchdog
outcome..
Signed-off-by: Daniel Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Index: linux-2.6.22/arch/i386/kernel/nmi.c
===
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 15:55 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> Yet the model name looks strange. So we need to run one more test,
> as the fam/model is not enough. What we need to check is whether or
> not this processor implements architectural perfmon or not.
>
> Could you please compile and run
Daniel,
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 10:55:31AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> Here is the cpuinfo for processor 0 .. It's got four cores so this isn't
> the full /proc/cpuinfo output ..
>
> processor : 0
> vendor_id : GenuineIntel
> cpu family : 6
> model : 14
The looks
On 8/27/07, Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now that I'm looking at the kernel bugzilla .. If you set the kernel
> version to 2.6.22 and set the "Regression" check box you could denote
> the fact that it's a regression in that kernel version ..
>
> I don't know if this URL is going to
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 10:08:34 -0700
Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 09:44 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > It's a hassle when someone doesn't have a bugzilla account. But there are
> > humans sitting behind bugzilla handling stuff (fsvo "human"). I've already
>
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 10:54 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> You mentioned you have a development board with a dual Pentium-M.
>
> What are the exact family/model numbers?
>
> What Bjorn points you at below is a fix that applies to
> Intel Core Duo/Solo (Yonah) and Intel Core 2
Daniel,
You mentioned you have a development board with a dual Pentium-M.
What are the exact family/model numbers?
What Bjorn points you at below is a fix that applies to
Intel Core Duo/Solo (Yonah) and Intel Core 2 series but not to
regular Pentium-M (no architectural perfmon there).
I have
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 19:02 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> Indeed, now we need a predefined search "show regressions in 2.6.x" :)
>
> So the plan is simple:
> - copy all regressions into bugzilla after each release
> - make sure that all regressions reported on lkml after realase hit bugzilla
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 09:44 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> It's a hassle when someone doesn't have a bugzilla account. But there are
> humans sitting behind bugzilla handling stuff (fsvo "human"). I've already
> forwarded your bugzilla report to Stephane pointing out that he doesn't
> have an
Daniel Walker pisze:
> On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 17:26 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
>> On 27/08/07, Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 13:38 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
On 27/08/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [..]
> I'm not sure that we
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:26:48 -0700 Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 00:51 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 02:45:02 +0200 Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Daniel Walker pisze:
> > > [snip]
> > > > Have you considered
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 09:44:03AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>...
> What I haven't been doing is ensuring that the Product and Component fields
> are suitably set. That's something which Natalie is now cleaning up.
I always fixed them when they were wrong, and I'd therefore be surprised
if
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 00:51 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 02:45:02 +0200 Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Daniel Walker pisze:
> > [snip]
> > > Have you considered maintaining all the lists in Bugzilla?
> >
> > Yes, I have considered it.
> >
> > Bugzilla
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 18:09 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 05:41:17AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> What I'm concerned about is that regressions which we didn't fix are just
> >> getting lost. Is anyone taking care to ensure that they are getting
>
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 05:41:17AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>> What I'm concerned about is that regressions which we didn't fix are just
>> getting lost. Is anyone taking care to ensure that they are getting
>> transitioned into bugzilla for tracking?
>
> Maybe this was a
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 17:26 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> On 27/08/07, Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 13:38 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> > > On 27/08/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [..]
> > > > I'm not sure that we need one, really. Any
On 27/08/07, Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 13:38 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> > On 27/08/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[..]
> > > I'm not sure that we need one, really. Any bugs in a stable release can
> > > be
> > > handled via email and/or
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 13:38 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> On 27/08/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 02:45:02 +0200 Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Daniel Walker pisze:
> > > [snip]
> > > > Have you considered maintaining all the
On 27/08/07, Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 02:45 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> > Daniel Walker pisze:
> > [snip]
> > > Have you considered maintaining all the lists in Bugzilla?
> >
> > Yes, I have considered it.
> >
> > Bugzilla sucks when it comes to
On 27/08/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday, 27 August 2007 13:38, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
[..]
> > I can copy all regression reports into Bugzilla after each release.
>
> The unresolved ones, that is?
Yes, exactly.
> If you can do that, it would be a very good
>
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 02:45 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> Daniel Walker pisze:
> [snip]
> > Have you considered maintaining all the lists in Bugzilla?
>
> Yes, I have considered it.
>
> Bugzilla sucks when it comes to tracking things. There is
> a regression field, but there are no
On Monday, 27 August 2007 13:38, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> On 27/08/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 02:45:02 +0200 Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Daniel Walker pisze:
> > > [snip]
> > > > Have you considered maintaining all the
On 27/08/07, David Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/26/07, Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Bugzilla sucks when it comes to tracking things. There is
> > a regression field, but there are no difference between
> > 2.6.22 and 2.6.23 regression.
>
> Here's how to use Bugzilla
On 27/08/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 02:45:02 +0200 Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Daniel Walker pisze:
> > [snip]
> > > Have you considered maintaining all the lists in Bugzilla?
> >
> > Yes, I have considered it.
> >
> > Bugzilla
On 27/08/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > What I'm concerned about is that regressions which we didn't fix are just
> > getting lost. Is anyone taking care to ensure that they are getting
> > transitioned into bugzilla for tracking?
>
> Maybe this was a dumb
Andrew Morton wrote:
What I'm concerned about is that regressions which we didn't fix are just
getting lost. Is anyone taking care to ensure that they are getting
transitioned into bugzilla for tracking?
Maybe this was a dumb assumption on my part, but I thought regressions
were getting
On 8/26/07, Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bugzilla sucks when it comes to tracking things. There is
> a regression field, but there are no difference between
> 2.6.22 and 2.6.23 regression.
Here's how to use Bugzilla to track regressions between different
kernel versions:
Create
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 02:45:02 +0200 Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniel Walker pisze:
> [snip]
> > Have you considered maintaining all the lists in Bugzilla?
>
> Yes, I have considered it.
>
> Bugzilla sucks when it comes to tracking things. There is
> a regression field, but
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 02:45:02 +0200 Michal Piotrowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel Walker pisze:
[snip]
Have you considered maintaining all the lists in Bugzilla?
Yes, I have considered it.
Bugzilla sucks when it comes to tracking things. There is
a regression field, but there are no
On 8/26/07, Michal Piotrowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bugzilla sucks when it comes to tracking things. There is
a regression field, but there are no difference between
2.6.22 and 2.6.23 regression.
Here's how to use Bugzilla to track regressions between different
kernel versions:
Create a
Andrew Morton wrote:
What I'm concerned about is that regressions which we didn't fix are just
getting lost. Is anyone taking care to ensure that they are getting
transitioned into bugzilla for tracking?
Maybe this was a dumb assumption on my part, but I thought regressions
were getting
On 27/08/07, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
What I'm concerned about is that regressions which we didn't fix are just
getting lost. Is anyone taking care to ensure that they are getting
transitioned into bugzilla for tracking?
Maybe this was a dumb assumption
On 27/08/07, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 02:45:02 +0200 Michal Piotrowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Daniel Walker pisze:
[snip]
Have you considered maintaining all the lists in Bugzilla?
Yes, I have considered it.
Bugzilla sucks when it comes to
On 27/08/07, David Rees [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/26/07, Michal Piotrowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bugzilla sucks when it comes to tracking things. There is
a regression field, but there are no difference between
2.6.22 and 2.6.23 regression.
Here's how to use Bugzilla to track
On Monday, 27 August 2007 13:38, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
On 27/08/07, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 02:45:02 +0200 Michal Piotrowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Daniel Walker pisze:
[snip]
Have you considered maintaining all the lists in Bugzilla?
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 02:45 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Daniel Walker pisze:
[snip]
Have you considered maintaining all the lists in Bugzilla?
Yes, I have considered it.
Bugzilla sucks when it comes to tracking things. There is
a regression field, but there are no difference between
On 27/08/07, Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday, 27 August 2007 13:38, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
[..]
I can copy all regression reports into Bugzilla after each release.
The unresolved ones, that is?
Yes, exactly.
If you can do that, it would be a very good
thing, IMO.
On 27/08/07, Daniel Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 02:45 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Daniel Walker pisze:
[snip]
Have you considered maintaining all the lists in Bugzilla?
Yes, I have considered it.
Bugzilla sucks when it comes to tracking things. There
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 13:38 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
On 27/08/07, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 02:45:02 +0200 Michal Piotrowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Daniel Walker pisze:
[snip]
Have you considered maintaining all the lists in Bugzilla?
On 27/08/07, Daniel Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 13:38 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
On 27/08/07, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[..]
I'm not sure that we need one, really. Any bugs in a stable release can
be
handled via email and/or bugzilla as we
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 17:26 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
On 27/08/07, Daniel Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 13:38 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
On 27/08/07, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[..]
I'm not sure that we need one, really. Any bugs in a
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 18:09 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 05:41:17AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
What I'm concerned about is that regressions which we didn't fix are just
getting lost. Is anyone taking care to ensure that they are getting
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 05:41:17AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
What I'm concerned about is that regressions which we didn't fix are just
getting lost. Is anyone taking care to ensure that they are getting
transitioned into bugzilla for tracking?
Maybe this was a dumb
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
