Re: 2.6.34-rc5: Reported regressions from 2.6.33

2010-04-21 Thread Nick Bowler
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 07:15:38AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday 20 April 2010, Nick Bowler wrote: > > Please list these two similar regressions from 2.6.33 in the r600 DRM: > > > > * r600 CS checker rejects GL_DEPTH_TEST w/o depth buffer: > >https://bugs.freedesktop.or

Re: 2.6.34-rc5: Reported regressions from 2.6.33

2010-04-21 Thread Jerome Glisse
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 07:15:38AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday 20 April 2010, Nick Bowler wrote: > > On 05:15 Tue 20 Apr , Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > If you know of any other unresolved regressions from 2.6.33, please let us > > > know either and we'll add them to the list.

Re: 2.6.34-rc5: Reported regressions from 2.6.33

2010-04-20 Thread Ben Gamari
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 05:15:57 +0200 (CEST), "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote: > This message contains a list of some regressions from 2.6.33, > for which there are no fixes in the mainline known to the tracking team. > If any of them have been fixed already, please let us know. > > If you know of any ot

Re: 2.6.34-rc5: Reported regressions from 2.6.33

2010-04-20 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Tuesday 20 April 2010, Nick Bowler wrote: > On 05:15 Tue 20 Apr , Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > If you know of any other unresolved regressions from 2.6.33, please let us > > know either and we'll add them to the list. Also, please let us know > > if any of the entries below are invalid. >

Re: 2.6.34-rc5: Reported regressions from 2.6.33

2010-04-20 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Wednesday 21 April 2010, Ben Gamari wrote: > On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 05:15:57 +0200 (CEST), "Rafael J. Wysocki" > wrote: > > This message contains a list of some regressions from 2.6.33, > > for which there are no fixes in the mainline known to the tracking team. > > If any of them have been fixed

Re: 2.6.34-rc5: Reported regressions from 2.6.33

2010-04-20 Thread Nick Bowler
On 05:15 Tue 20 Apr , Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > If you know of any other unresolved regressions from 2.6.33, please let us > know either and we'll add them to the list. Also, please let us know > if any of the entries below are invalid. Please list these two similar regressions from 2.6.33 i

Re: 2.6.34-rc5: Reported regressions from 2.6.33

2010-04-19 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Tuesday 20 April 2010, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 05:15:57 +0200 (CEST) "Rafael J. Wysocki" > wrote: > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15812 > > Subject : utsname.domainname not set in x86_32 processes > > (causing "YPBINDPROC_DOMAIN:

Re: 2.6.34-rc5: Reported regressions from 2.6.33

2010-04-19 Thread Andrew Morton
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 05:15:57 +0200 (CEST) "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote: > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15812 > Subject : utsname.domainname not set in x86_32 processes > (causing "YPBINDPROC_DOMAIN: domain not bound" errors) > Submitter : > Date