tags 629994 + upstream wontfix
quit
Hi Marc,
Marc Lehmann wrote:
In 2.6.39 (and maybe some earlier versions= of Linux, sendfile supports
file-file copies.
[...]
Linux always seems to stop copying at 0x7000 bytes, without apparent
reason (such as disk full or another error). This happens
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
tags 629994 + upstream wontfix
Bug #629994 [linux-2.6] linux-image-2.6.39-1-amd64: sendfile returns early
without user-visible reason
Added tag(s) upstream and wontfix.
quit
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
Your message dated Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:00:04 +
with message-id 20110610090003.gd22...@vostochny.stro.at
and subject line Re: Bug#629985: initramfs-tools: encrypted rootfs doesn't work
has caused the Debian Bug report #629985,
regarding initramfs-tools: encrypted rootfs doesn't work
to be
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 03:21:38AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com
wrote:
Indeed, read(2) does the same thing (truncates to 7000) and has done
What the fuck, it's buggy, indeed:
read(0,
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0...,
3298534883328) =
tags 629994 + lfs
quit
Hi,
Marc Lehmann wrote:
[out of order for convenience]
Well, for read, the situation is a bit different, because thats a clear
posix violation.
[...]
The value returned may be less than nbyte if the number of bytes left
in the file is less than nbyte, if the
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
tags 629994 + lfs
Bug #629994 [linux-2.6] linux-image-2.6.39-1-amd64: sendfile returns early
without user-visible reason
Added tag(s) lfs.
quit
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
629994:
Package: linux-2.6
Version: 2.6.39-2
Severity: important
Computer is a HP Pavilion dm1-3000 with a Synaptics touchpad. After a
suspend/resume cycle, any use of the touchpad causes successive keystrokes to
be either lost or repeated. This issue also occurred in previous Debian
packages of the
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:15:44PM +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 03:21:38AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder
jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed, read(2) does the same thing (truncates to 7000) and has done
What the fuck, it's buggy, indeed:
read(0,
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 06:30:48AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, for read, the situation is a bit different, because thats a clear
posix violation.
[...]
The value returned may be less than nbyte if the number of bytes left
in the file is less than nbyte,
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 02:29:46PM +0200, Bastian Blank wa...@debian.org
wrote:
What the fuck, it's buggy, indeed:
read(0,
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0...,
3298534883328) = 2147479552
What is the bug?
Please *read* the bug report.
transfers
clone 629994 -1
reassign -1 manpages-dev 3.27-1
severity -1 = minor
tags -1 = upstream lfs
retitle -1 read/write/readv/writev/sendfile(2): undocumented cap on number of
bytes read/written
quit
Marc Lehmann wrote:
(out of order for convenience)
I am really busy with writing and maintaining a
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
clone 629994 -1
Bug#629994: linux-image-2.6.39-1-amd64: sendfile returns early without
user-visible reason
Bug 629994 cloned as bug 630029.
reassign -1 manpages-dev 3.27-1
Bug #630029 [linux-2.6] linux-image-2.6.39-1-amd64: sendfile returns
Package: linux-2.6
Version: 2.6.39-2
Severity: important
Tags: sid
Kernel would not boot first thing this morning (June 10) but yesterday it
seemed OK after aptitude upgrade. Now after another upgrade it boots, but there
is a bug trace in logs
-- Package-specific info:
** Version:
Linux
Ben Hutchings hat am Mon 06. Jun, 09:45 (+0100) geschrieben:
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 01:48 +0200, Jörg Sommer wrote:
Ben Hutchings hat am Sun 05. Jun, 20:37 (+0100) geschrieben:
On Sat, 2011-05-28 at 17:23 +0200, Jörg Sommer wrote:
[...]
Oh well, please try installing this package:
Your message dated Fri, 10 Jun 2011 14:43:14 +0100
with message-id 1307713394.22348.597.camel@localhost
and subject line Re: Bug#629994: linux-image-2.6.39-1-amd64: sendfile returns
early without user-visible reason
has caused the Debian Bug report #629994,
regarding linux-image-2.6.39-1-amd64:
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 15:28 +0200, Jörg Sommer wrote:
Ben Hutchings hat am Mon 06. Jun, 09:45 (+0100) geschrieben:
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 01:48 +0200, Jörg Sommer wrote:
Ben Hutchings hat am Sun 05. Jun, 20:37 (+0100) geschrieben:
On Sat, 2011-05-28 at 17:23 +0200, Jörg Sommer wrote:
Please move this discussion somewhere else. I consider this no bug at all
and you failed to convince me.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 03:08:11PM +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 02:29:46PM +0200, Bastian Blank wa...@debian.org
wrote:
What the fuck, it's buggy, indeed:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 08:17:22AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, the relevant posix manpage for read is read, not the one for write.
read is clear.
I looked at both. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree here ---
Yes, but thats your lack of understanding
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 15:08 +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote:
[...]
Reading standards is notoriously difficult, I admit. The behaviour of read
is specified to read the requested number of bytes, if possible.
The standard gives an exception list where applications can deviate from
the behaviour and
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 14:47 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 15:08 +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote:
[...]
Reading standards is notoriously difficult, I admit. The behaviour of read
is specified to read the requested number of bytes, if possible.
The standard gives an
Marc Lehmann wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 08:17:22AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder
jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
I looked at both. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree here ---
Yes, but thats your lack of understanding prose logic, not a valid
disagreement:
Is insulting people what agree
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 01:45:03PM +, Debian Bug Tracking System
ow...@bugs.debian.org wrote:
This was a deliberate change made some time ago to avoid possible
internal overflows.
It still breaks userspace apps.
Unix read/write calls have always worked that way.
Thats utter bullshit.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com
wrote:
I looked at both. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree here ---
Yes, but thats your lack of understanding prose logic, not a valid
disagreement:
Is insulting people what agree to disagree means?
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 16:06 +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote:
[...]
I can understand if debian doesn't want to fix this bug. But corrupting
data when users try to rescue their data with a too large dd blocksize
is clearly too important to let people like you just make blatant wrong
statements and
Hello Ben,
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 03:29:19 +0100
Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk wrote:
On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 19:44 +0200, Joerg wrote:
Package: linux-2.6
Version: 2.6.39-2
Severity: normal
Adding a tap-interface to a bridge works fine. But adding eth0 to the bridge
brctl addif
Package: linux-image-2.6.39-2-kirkwood
Version: 2.6.39-2
Severity: normal
when trying to boot on an HP t5325, i get the following error:
Error: unrecognized/unsupported machine ID (r1 = 0x020f).
Available machine support:
ID (hex)NAME
0690Marvell DB-88F6281-BP
26 matches
Mail list logo
