On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 17:36:24 +0100 (BST)
James Simmons wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 15:10:50 -0700
> > Jesse Barnes wrote:
> >
> > > This set of 3 patches makes it a little more likely we'll get panic
> > > output onto the screen even when X is running, assuming a KMS enabled
> > > stack any
On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 17:36:24 +0100 (BST)
James Simmons wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 15:10:50 -0700
> > Jesse Barnes wrote:
> >
> > > This set of 3 patches makes it a little more likely we'll get panic
> > > output onto the screen even when X is running, assuming a KMS enabled
> > > stack any
> On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 15:10:50 -0700
> Jesse Barnes wrote:
>
> > This set of 3 patches makes it a little more likely we'll get panic
> > output onto the screen even when X is running, assuming a KMS enabled
> > stack anyway.
> >
> > It gets me from a blank or very sparsely populated black screen
> On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 15:10:50 -0700
> Jesse Barnes wrote:
>
> > This set of 3 patches makes it a little more likely we'll get panic
> > output onto the screen even when X is running, assuming a KMS enabled
> > stack anyway.
> >
> > It gets me from a blank or very sparsely populated black screen
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Jesse Barnes
wrote:
> I'll test again this week. ?I still don't see how these small patches could
> cause issues with suspend/resume unless we set oops_in_progress during that
> time on your machine...
>
> Jesse
I've just given these a test on the EL6 kernel, a
On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 16:09 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Jesse Barnes
> wrote:
> > I'll test again this week. I still don't see how these small patches could
> > cause issues with suspend/resume unless we set oops_in_progress during that
> > time on your machin
On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 16:09 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Jesse Barnes
> wrote:
> > I'll test again this week. I still don't see how these small patches could
> > cause issues with suspend/resume unless we set oops_in_progress during that
> > time on your machin
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> I'll test again this week. I still don't see how these small patches could
> cause issues with suspend/resume unless we set oops_in_progress during that
> time on your machine...
>
> Jesse
I've just given these a test on the EL6 kernel, an
I'll test again this week. I still don't see how these small patches could
cause issues with suspend/resume unless we set oops_in_progress during that
time on your machine...
Jesse
Maxim Levitsky wrote:
>On Sat, 2010-05-22 at 01:26 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
>> On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 15:02
I'll test again this week. I still don't see how these small patches could
cause issues with suspend/resume unless we set oops_in_progress during that
time on your machine...
Jesse
Maxim Levitsky wrote:
>On Sat, 2010-05-22 at 01:26 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
>> On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 15:02
On Sat, 2010-05-22 at 01:26 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 15:02 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > On Sat, 22 May 2010 00:57:30 +0300
> > Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 00:14 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 09:28 -0700, Jesse
On Sat, 2010-05-22 at 01:26 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 15:02 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > On Sat, 22 May 2010 00:57:30 +0300
> > Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 00:14 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 09:28 -0700, Jesse
On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 15:02 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Sat, 22 May 2010 00:57:30 +0300
> Maxim Levitsky wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 00:14 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 09:28 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 20 May 2010 04:27:07 +0300
> > > > Max
On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 00:14 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 09:28 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 May 2010 04:27:07 +0300
> > Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 04:13 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 17:34 -0700, Jesse
On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 15:02 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Sat, 22 May 2010 00:57:30 +0300
> Maxim Levitsky wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 00:14 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 09:28 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 20 May 2010 04:27:07 +0300
> > > > Max
On Sat, 22 May 2010 00:57:30 +0300
Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 00:14 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 09:28 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > On Thu, 20 May 2010 04:27:07 +0300
> > > Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 04:13 +0300,
On Sat, 22 May 2010 00:57:30 +0300
Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 00:14 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 09:28 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > On Thu, 20 May 2010 04:27:07 +0300
> > > Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 04:13 +0300,
On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 00:14 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 09:28 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 May 2010 04:27:07 +0300
> > Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 04:13 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 17:34 -0700, Jesse
On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 09:28 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Thu, 20 May 2010 04:27:07 +0300
> Maxim Levitsky wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 04:13 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 17:34 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 15:10:50 -0700
> > > > Jess
On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 09:28 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Thu, 20 May 2010 04:27:07 +0300
> Maxim Levitsky wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 04:13 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 17:34 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 15:10:50 -0700
> > > > Jess
On Thu, 20 May 2010 04:27:07 +0300
Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 04:13 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 17:34 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 15:10:50 -0700
> > > Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > >
> > > > This set of 3 patches makes it a littl
On Thu, 20 May 2010 04:27:07 +0300
Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 04:13 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 17:34 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 15:10:50 -0700
> > > Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > >
> > > > This set of 3 patches makes it a littl
On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 04:13 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 17:34 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 15:10:50 -0700
> > Jesse Barnes wrote:
> >
> > > This set of 3 patches makes it a little more likely we'll get panic
> > > output onto the screen even when X
On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 17:34 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 15:10:50 -0700
> Jesse Barnes wrote:
>
> > This set of 3 patches makes it a little more likely we'll get panic
> > output onto the screen even when X is running, assuming a KMS enabled
> > stack anyway.
> >
> > It gets
On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 04:13 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 17:34 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 15:10:50 -0700
> > Jesse Barnes wrote:
> >
> > > This set of 3 patches makes it a little more likely we'll get panic
> > > output onto the screen even when X
On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 17:34 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 15:10:50 -0700
> Jesse Barnes wrote:
>
> > This set of 3 patches makes it a little more likely we'll get panic
> > output onto the screen even when X is running, assuming a KMS enabled
> > stack anyway.
> >
> > It gets
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 15:10:50 -0700
Jesse Barnes wrote:
> This set of 3 patches makes it a little more likely we'll get panic
> output onto the screen even when X is running, assuming a KMS enabled
> stack anyway.
>
> It gets me from a blank or very sparsely populated black screen at
> panic time,
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 15:10:50 -0700
Jesse Barnes wrote:
> This set of 3 patches makes it a little more likely we'll get panic
> output onto the screen even when X is running, assuming a KMS enabled
> stack anyway.
>
> It gets me from a blank or very sparsely populated black screen at
> panic time,
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 15:10:50 -0700
Jesse Barnes wrote:
> This set of 3 patches makes it a little more likely we'll get panic
> output onto the screen even when X is running, assuming a KMS enabled
> stack anyway.
>
> It gets me from a blank or very sparsely populated black screen at
> panic time,
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 15:10:50 -0700
Jesse Barnes wrote:
> This set of 3 patches makes it a little more likely we'll get panic
> output onto the screen even when X is running, assuming a KMS enabled
> stack anyway.
>
> It gets me from a blank or very sparsely populated black screen at
> panic time,
This set of 3 patches makes it a little more likely we'll get panic
output onto the screen even when X is running, assuming a KMS enabled
stack anyway.
It gets me from a blank or very sparsely populated black screen at
panic time, to one including the full backtrace and panic output at
panic time
This set of 3 patches makes it a little more likely we'll get panic
output onto the screen even when X is running, assuming a KMS enabled
stack anyway.
It gets me from a blank or very sparsely populated black screen at
panic time, to one including the full backtrace and panic output at
panic time
32 matches
Mail list logo
