On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 15:57:32 +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
reopen 545125
found 545125 2.6.32-17
thanks
Hi,
Even if the problem occurs less often, I still experiment it sometimes
with 2.6.32-17.
The last time (yesterday), just after a resume, any new processus
segfault within
reopen 545125
found 545125 2.6.32-17
thanks
Hi,
Even if the problem occurs less often, I still experiment it sometimes
with 2.6.32-17.
The last time (yesterday), just after a resume, any new processus
segfault within the ld.so code... So I rebooted.
And today, I discovered, just before
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 15:57:32 +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
Even if the problem occurs less often, I still experiment it sometimes
with 2.6.32-17.
The last time (yesterday), just after a resume, any new processus
segfault within the ld.so code... So I rebooted.
And today, I
On 14/07/2010 20:18, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 15:57:32 +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
Even if the problem occurs less often, I still experiment it sometimes
with 2.6.32-17.
The last time (yesterday), just after a resume, any new processus
segfault within the ld.so
On 14/07/2010 20:18, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 15:57:32 +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
Even if the problem occurs less often, I still experiment it sometimes
with 2.6.32-17.
The last time (yesterday), just after a resume, any new processus
segfault within the ld.so
5 matches
Mail list logo