On Wednesday, June 09, 2010, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a summary report
> > of recent regressions.
> >
> > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> > from 2.6.34. Please verify if
On Wed, 9 Jun 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > That has a "reverting the commit fixes it", and a confirmation from Nick
> > Bowler.
> >
> > Eric, Carl: should I just revert that commit? Or do you have a fix?
>
> This one is reported to have been fixed already. Closed now.
Heh. That "f
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a summary report
> of recent regressions.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> from 2.6.34. Please verify if it still should be listed and let the tracking
> team
> know (ei
On 2010-06-09 11:32, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> This should be fixed by commit 28f4197e which was merged on friday.
>
> The scheduler commit adding local_clock() (for .36) is:
>
> c676329: sched_clock: Add local_clock() API and improve documentation
>
> So once that is upstream the block IO statist
* Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2010-06-09 03:53, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16129
> >> Subject: BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [] code:
> >> jbd2/sda2
> >> Submitter : Jan Kreuzer
> >> Date : 2010-06-05
On Wednesday 09 June 2010, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> The patch from [1] is still missing.
>
>"cpufreq-call-nr_iowait_cpu-with-disabled-preemption.patch" from
> Dmitry Monakhoc
>
> Tested-by: Sedat Dilek
> Tested-by Maciej Rutecki
>
> I have already reported this issue on LKML [2] and cpufreq ML
On Wednesday 09 June 2010, Alan Jenkins wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday 08 June 2010, Alan Jenkins wrote:
> >
> >> I found this bug 2.6.34 on my Asus EeePC 701 (x86_32 arch). It didn't
> >> happen to me before, when I was running nearly-2.6.33 or 2.6.32-release.
> >>
> >> I us
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday 08 June 2010, Alan Jenkins wrote:
I found this bug 2.6.34 on my Asus EeePC 701 (x86_32 arch). It didn't
happen to me before, when I was running nearly-2.6.33 or 2.6.32-release.
I used git-bisect, but unfortunately the result isn't very helpful. My
next
On Wednesday 09 June 2010, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> [ Added lots of cc's to direct specific people to look at the regressions
> that may or may not be theirs... ]
>
> On Wed, 9 Jun 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > * Quite a few of the already reported regressions may be related to the
The patch from [1] is still missing.
"cpufreq-call-nr_iowait_cpu-with-disabled-preemption.patch" from
Dmitry Monakhoc
Tested-by: Sedat Dilek
Tested-by Maciej Rutecki
I have already reported this issue on LKML [2] and cpufreq ML [3].
- Sedat -
[1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/cpufreq/msg01
On Wednesday 09 June 2010, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em 08-06-2010 22:53, Linus Torvalds escreveu:
>
> >
> >> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16037
> >> Subject: NULL Pointer dereference in
> >> __ir_input_register/budget_ci_attach
> >> Submitter : Sean Finney
On Wednesday 09 June 2010, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2010-06-09 03:53, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16129
> >> Subject: BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [] code:
> >> jbd2/sda2
> >> Submitter : Jan Kreuzer
> >> Date
On Wednesday 09 June 2010, Larry Finger wrote:
> On 06/08/2010 05:10 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a summary report
> > of recent regressions.
> >
> > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> > from 2.6.34.
On 2010-06-09 03:53, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> Bug-Entry: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16129
>> Subject : BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [] code:
>> jbd2/sda2
>> Submitter: Jan Kreuzer
>> Date : 2010-06-05 06:15 (4 days old)
>
> This seems
14 matches
Mail list logo
