and Andrew (Len as maintainer, Andrew as maintainer of
last resort). what more would I need?
--
Arjan van de VenIntel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
it'll point to the exact
code that's going wrong...
--
Arjan van de VenIntel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kernel-testers in
the body
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 11:31:03 +0200
Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
* Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.29.
memory allocator knows about it and
would hand it out in this context; BIOS owned areas are not ram in
this context.
--
Arjan van de VenIntel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list
://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=123150395731165w=4
Handled-By: Arjan van de Ven ar...@infradead.org
Patch :
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=123156441218358w=4
http://marc.info/?t=12315645312r=1w=4
it is sad that a patch for a regression that has been available for
this long still
in powertop
--
Arjan van de VenIntel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kernel-testers in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 23:52:06 +0100
Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday, 7 of December 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 21:32:54 +0100 (CET)
Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a
report
to (potentially) take the mmap sem (which it does if there's
a fault)...
previously you had to actually fault to get the lock dependency noticed.
--
Arjan van de VenIntel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit atty://www.lesswatts.org
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 13:48:29 +0200
Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday, 1 of September 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:36:45 +0200
Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-30 at 21:50 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
This message
regressions
from 2.6.26. Please verify if it still should be listed and let me
know (either way).
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11438
Subject : Upcoming oops in lockdep
Submitter : Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2008-08
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Alan D. Brunelle wrote:
Mine has:
Dump of assembler code for function sys_init_module:
0x802688c4 sys_init_module+4: sub$0x1c0,%rsp
so 448 bytes.
Yeah, your build seems to have consistently bigger stack usage, and that
may be due to
11 matches
Mail list logo
