This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.31 and 2.6.32.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.31 and 2.6.32. Please verify if it still should
be listed and let the tracking team
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.31 and 2.6.32.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.31 and 2.6.32. Please verify if it still should
be listed and let the tracking team
On Tuesday 02 February 2010, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
Hi.
Sorry, it took really long to catch all the things around, but it is
better than never.
History says that commit which introduced per-bdi writeback broke
pohmelfs, since it does not have backing store device and did not fill
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 11:57:43PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
Hi.
Sorry, it took really long to catch all the things around, but it is
better than never.
History says that commit which introduced per-bdi writeback broke
pohmelfs, since it does not have backing store device and did not
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 01:18:09PM -0800, Greg KH (g...@kroah.com) wrote:
Jens, thanks a lot for you patch, Greg please pull it up.
If you did not find it or can not extract from the reply, I will resend.
Please resend it with a signed-off-by line so that I can apply it.
Done, thank you.
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.31 and 2.6.32.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.31 and 2.6.32. Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either
On Monday 11 January 2010, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 11:56:17PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki (r...@sisk.pl)
wrote:
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.31 and 2.6.32.
The following bug entry is on
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.31 and 2.6.32.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.31 and 2.6.32. Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 11:56:17PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki (r...@sisk.pl)
wrote:
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.31 and 2.6.32.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between
Hi Jens.
Thanks a lot for your patch, it looks good, but I'm not able to check it
right now - its new year holidays here, that's also why reply is too late :)
I will try it in a week and report back.
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 10:14:34AM +0100, Jens Axboe (jens.ax...@oracle.com)
wrote:
On Tue,
On Tue, Dec 29 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday 29 December 2009, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 04:28:52PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki (r...@sisk.pl)
wrote:
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.31 and 2.6.32.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.31 and 2.6.32. Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 04:28:52PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki (r...@sisk.pl)
wrote:
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.31 and 2.6.32.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between
13 matches
Mail list logo
