On 2018-09-19, Natanael Copa wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2018 13:57:17 -0700
> Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>> On 2018-09-03, Nicolas Braud-Santoni wrote:
>> > Could you confirm whether the patch solves the bug on your hardware?
>>
>> I'd be happy to try it out! Unfortunately, the patch sent to the
On Mon, 03 Sep 2018 13:57:17 -0700
Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> On 2018-09-03, Nicolas Braud-Santoni wrote:
> > Hi Vagrant !
> >
> > Could you confirm whether the patch solves the bug on your hardware?
>
> I'd be happy to try it out! Unfortunately, the patch sent to the debian
> BTS is some xml
On Mon, 3 Sep 2018 21:54:08 +0200
Nicolas Braud-Santoni wrote:
> Control: tag -1 + patch upstream moreinfo
> Control: severity -1 important
>
> Hi Natanael !
>
> Thanks for providing the patch.
>
> Did you forward this patch upstream, and do you know whether it was
> included in the latest
On 2018-09-03, Nicolas Braud-Santoni wrote:
> Hi Natanael !
>
> Thanks for providing the patch.
>
> Did you forward this patch upstream, and do you know whether it was
> included in the latest upstream release?
>
>
> Hi Vagrant !
>
> Could you confirm whether the patch solves the bug on your
Control: tag -1 + patch upstream moreinfo
Control: severity -1 important
Hi Natanael !
Thanks for providing the patch.
Did you forward this patch upstream, and do you know whether it was
included in the latest upstream release?
Hi Vagrant !
Could you confirm whether the patch solves the bug
Tag: Patch
Hi,
I bumped into this issue on Alpine Linux. It appears that the sysfs not
always report the cpu cache size on arm (both 32bit and 64 bit). It
reports size to be -1 and haveged does not handle that case.
I have seen the case on xgene and thunderx machines.
I have attached a patch
6 matches
Mail list logo
