Re: 2.4.0-test5 bug: invalid "shmid_kernel" passed to "shm_nopage_core"

Christoph Rohland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > This is the first report of such corruption. If it's real it is _not_ > fixed between test5 and test11. There is probably no way to reproduce > it since you ask if it's fixed in test11, right? I know no way to reproduce it. I've been using

Re: difference between kernel and bios report on drive status

It is a standards bug that your drives are mixed in the rev. Adjust the IVB option so that it does not care about these bits just the presence of either set. Cheers, On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi there: > > I am using PROMISE ultra100 with 2 UDMA66 disks. The PROMIS >

Patch: 2.4.0-test11ac4 version of pci and isapnp device ID's patch

For those of you playing with Alan Cox's linux-2.4.0-test11ac4 release, I have made a separate patch of the remaining device ID changes which patches against that kernel and builds cleanly (the primary difference is that it omits the files that have gained the same ID tables in Alan's ac4

difference between kernel and bios report on drive status

Hi there: I am using PROMISE ultra100 with 2 UDMA66 disks. The PROMIS bios reports that both disks are using UDMA 4. But during kernel boot On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, Szabolcs Szakacsits wrote: up, the master disk is using UDMA 2 only. The reason is that master disk's pci->dma_ultra value is only

Patch: linux-2.4.0-test11ac4/drivers/net/tokenring/{tmspci,abyss}.c __devinit fixes

Hooray! I see that Alan has included a port of the drivers/net/tokenring/{tmspci,abyss}.c to the new PCI interface, presumably by Adam Fritzler. This patch correct some minor errors where __devinit{,data} should be used instead of __init{,data} so the driver does not make

Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0"

On Sun, 26 Nov 2000, Keith Owens wrote: > >Are you positive for modules too... > > Yes. I know this, I am being punchy. Cheers, Andre Hedrick CTO Timpanogas Research Group EVP Linux Development, TRG Linux ATA Development - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe

Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0"

On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 21:10:19 -0800 (PST), Andre Hedrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Sun, 26 Nov 2000, John Alvord wrote: >> It also says "I do not know much about the details of the kernel C >> environment. In particular I do not know that all static variables are >> initialized to 0 in the

Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0"

Andries Brouwer wrote: > On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 10:27:15PM +, Tigran Aivazian wrote: I think it's a bad sign if people like the two of you start flaming each other ... On the issue of static int foo = 0; vs. static int foo; I'd agree with Andries' view. It's a common enough idiom that

Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0"

On Sun, 26 Nov 2000, John Alvord wrote: > On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 04:25:05 + (GMT), Alan Cox > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> AB> of changes that yield a negligable advantage and reduce stability > >> AB> a tiny little bit. That is pushing Linux in the direction of this > >> AB> abyss.

Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0"

On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 04:25:05 + (GMT), Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> AB> of changes that yield a negligable advantage and reduce stability >> AB> a tiny little bit. That is pushing Linux in the direction of this >> AB> abyss. You notice that the view gets better, and I get

Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0"

> AB> of changes that yield a negligable advantage and reduce stability > AB> a tiny little bit. That is pushing Linux in the direction of this > AB> abyss. You notice that the view gets better, and I get nervous. > > Can somebody stop this train load of bunk? > > Uninitialized global

Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0"

On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Tim Waugh wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 10:53:00PM +, James A Sutherland wrote: > > > Which is silly. The variable is explicitly defined to be zero > > anyway, whether you put this in your code or not. > > Why doesn't the compiler just leave out explicit zeros

Re: Patch(?): isapnp_card_id tables for all isapnp drivers in 2.4.0-test11

> == Kai Germaschewski >> == Keith Owens >>> == Adam Richter >>> [...] I plan to go >>>through all of the changes and bracket all of these new tables >>>with #ifdef MODULE...#endif so they do not result in complaints >>>about the table being defined static and never used in cases where

test11-ac4, APM & Dell 5000e

Hi all, Thanks for the workaround on the Dell 5000e APM problems. However, there does seem to be a small typo in the patch. The comments state that the A04 BIOS dates 08/24/2000 is known defective, but the code itself is looking for 08/04/2000. With this small fix it actually "Works for Me"

[BUG] 2.4.0-test11-ac3 breaks raid autodetect (was Re: [BUG] raid5 link error? (was [PATCH] raid5 fix after xor.c cleanup))

Neil Brown wrote: > > The following patch changes the link order in the Makefile so that xor > is initiailised before md tries to autostart anything. > It also takes the theme a bit further and uses module_init/module_exit > to init and shutdown the raid personalities. This allows us to remove >

Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0"

> "AB" == Andries Brouwer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: AB> No insult intended. It is just that if there is an abyss AB> somewhere, I like to stay at least a meter away from it. Someone AB> else may think that one inch suffices. I see you propose a lot AB> of changes that yield a

Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0"

On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 06:02:51PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Andries Brouwer wrote: > > In a program source there is information for the compiler > > and information for the future me. Removing the " = 0" > > is like removing comments. For the compiler the information > > remains the same. For

Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0"

On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 10:27:15PM +, Tigran Aivazian wrote: : Hello Andries, Hi Tigran, : ... I am quite free to _rely_ on this fact and will possibly do so. Yes, you are. But some programmers have learned that it is a good idea to code in a way that is informative to the programmer. : >

2.4.0-test11 af_packet/tcpdump/routing bug?

The tcpdump program (tcpdump -p -i ppp1 -s 1500 not port login) will not report any packets after adding a default route to eth0 in the setup below. The packet generating command is ping 192.168.2.42 It has been verified at the ppp1 peer that packets really arrive there via ppp. Tcpdumping eth0

2.4.0-test11: Trying to free nonexistent resource <000003e0-000003e1>

While shutting down, /var/log/messages said: Nov 25 23:15:12 mimas cardmgr[342]: exiting Nov 25 23:15:14 mimas kernel: Trying to free nonexistent resource <03e0-03e1> Nov 25 23:15:14 mimas kernel: unloading PCMCIA Card Services mimas /proc# cat ioports -001f : dma1 0020-003f :

Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0" from drivers/ide (test11)

On Thu, 23 Nov 2000, Rusty Russell wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write: > > > On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 22:25:01 Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > > > > > > > Quick removal of unnecessary initialization to 0. > > > > Quite the contrary. The patch seems correct and useful to me. What

Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0"

On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 10:53:00PM +, James A Sutherland wrote: > Which is silly. The variable is explicitly defined to be zero > anyway, whether you put this in your code or not. Why doesn't the compiler just leave out explicit zeros from the 'initial data' segment then? Seems like it

Re: [PATCH] G450 support for matroxfb

On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 04:36:50PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > BTW, XF4.0.1e is also very unhappy on this hardware. > > Best regards, > > Petr Vandrovec > > [EMAIL

Re: PROBLEM: crashing kernels

Nice report. Wish they were all like that. Look: "Mr. Big" wrote: > > I thought that the khttpd is guilty, I won't use it anymore. Next morning > it crashed again, now without khttpd, without high load, without high > memory usage, just the 3Com driver said: > kernel: eth0: Interrupt posted

Re: Questions about Kernel 2.4.0.?

On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 14:20:39 -0800, "Android" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >There is a link in /lib/modules/2.4.0.11: build->/usr/src/linux >created by the Makefile (make modules_install). >What for? depmod doesn't like this link. It gets confused. grep modutils Documentation/Changes - To

Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0"

On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 11:46:24PM +0100, Andries Brouwer wrote: > > But if the program > > static int a = 0; > > int main() { > /* do something */ > } > > is used as part of a larger program, it has to become > > static int a; > > int do_something() { > a = 0; >

Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0"

Andries Brouwer wrote: > In a program source there is information for the compiler > and information for the future me. Removing the " = 0" > is like removing comments. For the compiler the information > remains the same. For the programmer something is lost. This is pretty much personal opinion

Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0"

On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Andries Brouwer wrote: > On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 09:11:18AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: > > > No information is lost. > > Do I explain things so badly? Let me try again. > The difference between > > static int a; > > and > > static int a = 0; > > is the " = 0". The

Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0"

On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 09:11:18AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: > No information is lost. Do I explain things so badly? Let me try again. The difference between static int a; and static int a = 0; is the " = 0". The compiler may well generate the same code, but I am not talking about the

Re: ext2 filesystem corruptions back from dead? 2.4.0-test11

I read up on this thread in the archives (the last message in thread was posted on the 24th) so I'm sorry if this has already been said. I'm having the same problem with 2.4.0-test10, but I don't have the problem with 2.4.0-test9. So i think the bug might have been introduced in 10. When I try

reproducible 2.2.1x nethangs

kernel versions 2.2.17 and 2.2.18-pre23 (same behavior) monolithic kernel i21143 tulip card (may or may not be significant, stock kernel driver) egcs-1.1.2, glibc-2.1.3, binutils-2.9.1.0.25 I can reliably hang either 2.2.17 or 2.2.18-pre23 (same way, same circumstances) with httpd over eth0. It

Re: Linux 2.4.0test11ac4

Alan Cox wrote: > o Fix ppa and imm hangs on io_request_lock(Tim Waugh) Just so I understand the differences, for learning purposes... Tim did this a little different than I did and I'd just like to understand the "whys" of it. Can't learn if I don't understand. :o) Thanks, John

Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0"

Hello Andries, On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Andries Brouwer wrote: > What a strange reaction. If I write > > static int foo; > > this means that foo is a variable, local to the present compilation unit, > whose initial value is irrelevant because it will be assigned to before use. > If I write > >

Re: PIIX4 BX Errata for DMA errors.

0} DMA modes: sdma0 sdma1 sdma2 mdma0 mdma1 mdma2 udma0 udma1 *udma2 Also is there a way to actually use /proc/ide/hd?/smart_* ? # diff -u --recursive 19990822 20001125 | diffstat hda/smart_values | 14 +++--- hdb/smart_values | 12 ++-- hdd/smart_values | 10 +- - T

Questions about Kernel 2.4.0.?

There is a link in /lib/modules/2.4.0.11: build->/usr/src/linux created by the Makefile (make modules_install).What for? depmod doesn't like this link. It gets confused.   Lines missing from /usr/src/linux/include/asm/uaccess.h:   #define put_user_ret(x,ptr,ret) ({ if (put_user(x,ptr))

Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0"

Andries Brouwer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > int foo = 0; /* just for gcc */ > when the initialization in fact is not necessary. Only for non-static foo. > It is a bad programming habit to depend on this zero initialization. > Indeed, very often, when you have a program that does something

Linux 2.4.0test11ac4

Changes in 2.4.0test11ac4 o Add clocking option to maestro (broken laptop (me) stuff again) o Put back the module locking in soundcore(David Schleef) that someone disabled o Abyss driver cleanup(Jeff Garzik) o Alpha

Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0"

On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 09:07:08PM +, Russell King wrote: > Andries Brouwer writes: > > What a strange reaction. If I write > > > > static int foo; > > > > this means that foo is a variable, local to the present compilation unit, > > whose initial value is irrelevant > > Wrong. The

Re: *_trylock return on success?

On Saturday 25 November 2000 20:22, Philipp Rumpf wrote: > On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 08:03:49PM +0100, Roger Larsson wrote: > > > _trylock functions return 0 for success. > > > > Not spin_trylock > > Argh, I missed the (recent ?) change to make x86 spinlocks use 1 to mean > unlocked. You're

Re: PROBLEM: crashing kernels

> Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > benn compiled into the kernel, and not as a module) always gave the > > > errors: > > > > > > eth0: Transmit timed out: status 0050 0090 at 134704418/134704432 > > > eth0: Trying to restart the transmitter... > > > > Known problem. This one

Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0"

Andries Brouwer writes: > What a strange reaction. If I write > > static int foo; > > this means that foo is a variable, local to the present compilation unit, > whose initial value is irrelevant because it will be assigned to before use. Wrong. The initial value is well-defined. Go and

Re: 2.4.0-test11: "_isofs_bmap: block < 0"

On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 06:20:56PM +0100, Arjan Filius wrote: > Nov 25 18:16:05 sjoerd kernel: _isofs_bmap: block < 0 Understood and solved. For the whole story read linux-kernel. To fix just this, remove the two lines if (filp->f_pos >= inode->i_size) return 0; from

Re: "Hyper-Mount" option possible???

** Reply to message from Robert L Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 23 Nov 2000 10:55:38 -0500 > Soo Given that Super-Mount is already taken, How about (in > 2.5??) hashing out a Hypermount option. How about calling it "multi-mount"? I think it's more accurate. -- Timur Tabi - [EMAIL

Re: PROBLEM: crashing kernels

Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > benn compiled into the kernel, and not as a module) always gave the > > errors: > > > > eth0: Transmit timed out: status 0050 0090 at 134704418/134704432 > > eth0: Trying to restart the transmitter... > > Known problem. This one might be fixed in

Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0"

On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 11:50:20AM +, Russell King wrote: > Rusty Russell writes: > > What irritates about these monkey-see-monkey-do patches is that if I > > initialize a variable to NULL, it's because my code actually relies on > > it; I don't want that information eliminated. > > What

Re: gcc-2.95.2-51 is buggy

On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Andries Brouwer wrote: > On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 03:26:15PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > The gcc-2.95.2-6cl from Conectiva 6.0 is buggy too. > > Yes. Probably you have seen it by now, but the difference between > good and bad versions of gcc-2.95.2 did not lie in the

Re: gcc-2.95.2-51 is buggy

On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 03:26:15PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote: > The gcc-2.95.2-6cl from Conectiva 6.0 is buggy too. Yes. Probably you have seen it by now, but the difference between good and bad versions of gcc-2.95.2 did not lie in the applied patches, but was the difference between

Re: *_trylock return on success?

On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 08:03:49PM +0100, Roger Larsson wrote: > > _trylock functions return 0 for success. > > Not spin_trylock Argh, I missed the (recent ?) change to make x86 spinlocks use 1 to mean unlocked. You're correct, and obviously this should be fixed. - To unsubscribe from this

Re: *_trylock return on success?

On Saturday 25 November 2000 19:30, Philipp Rumpf wrote: > On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 03:49:25PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Roger Larsson wrote: > > > Questions: > > > What are _trylocks supposed to return? > > > > It depends on the type of _trylock ;( > > > > > Does

Re: *_trylock return on success?

On Saturday 25 November 2000 18:49, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Roger Larsson wrote: > > Questions: > > What are _trylocks supposed to return? > > It depends on the type of _trylock ;( > > > Does spin_trylock and down_trylock behave differently? > > Why isn't the expected

Re: PROBLEM: crashing kernels

> Ok, I'll try. Since I'm not a kernel developer, I have the fool question, > wether it is enough to overwrite the .c and .h files in the 2.2.14 source > tree, or do I need to apply other changes too? I believe that is all you need to do for that driver - To unsubscribe from this list: send the

Re: PROBLEM: crashing kernels

> > benn compiled into the kernel, and not as a module) always gave the > > errors: > > > > eth0: Transmit timed out: status 0050 0090 at 134704418/134704432 > > eth0: Trying to restart the transmitter... > > Known problem. This one might be fixed in current 2.2.18pre. SOme people > see it

Re: *_trylock return on success?

On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 03:49:25PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Roger Larsson wrote: > > > Questions: > > What are _trylocks supposed to return? > > It depends on the type of _trylock ;( > > > Does spin_trylock and down_trylock behave differently? > > Why isn't the

Re: PROBLEM: crashing kernels

> benn compiled into the kernel, and not as a module) always gave the > errors: > > eth0: Transmit timed out: status 0050 0090 at 134704418/134704432 > eth0: Trying to restart the transmitter... Known problem. This one might be fixed in current 2.2.18pre. SOme people see it some dont >

Re: gcc-2.95.2-51 is buggy

On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 03:26:15PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote: Rik, We refuse to use it here at present. Builds from it have a lot of problems, for some reason. Andre is looking into it more deeply than I, but I agree with your assessment. Jeff > On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, Neil Brown wrote: > >

Re: silly [< >]

On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 10:07:44PM +1100, Keith Owens wrote: > If anybody really worries about the ix86 call trace going past column > 80, just patch your kernel to print 5 fields per line instead of 8. Do > not change the format. But hand copying an oops from an 80x24 screen > is not going to

PROBLEM: crashing kernels

[1.] Kernels 2.2.14, 2.2.17, 2.4.0-test11 crash with various errors (I know this is too simple, but this is what I could say in one line) [2.] We're running a quite bussy site, and updateing our servers hardware quite often. Since a while ago we're expecting many troubles, that usually end with

Re: setting up pppd dial-in on linux

On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 11:04:48AM -0600, William Scott Lockwood III wrote: > Jeff, > I am also VERY interested in this, particularly on getting modems to work > with Linux at all. I'm not reading the list right now, but I'd appreciate > any feedback you can throw my way on this. Esp. if you

Re: Oops on 2.2.18-23 as pppd dial in server

On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 06:22:57PM +0100, Chmouel Boudjnah wrote: > "Jeff V. Merkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Was able to reproduce this Oops, but it took several days. Oops occurs > > against 2.2.18-23. I had to copy this info from the console -- the > > system was hard hung after

Re: setting up pppd dial-in on linux

On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 02:28:56PM +0100, Pedro M. Rodrigues wrote: > >You are not alone. And the problem gets even worse when you > have to deal with ISDN devices. In my company´s data room we > have all Linux servers running 365 days a year (minus upgrade > time) and in one corner a

Re: setting up pppd dial-in on linux

On Fri, Nov 24, 2000 at 11:48:06PM -0800, J Sloan wrote: > "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: > > > Anyone out there a whiz at setting up a pppd dialin server? I am > > trying to put together an RPM for pppd dialin configurations > > that will support default Windows NT and Linux dial in clients > >

Re: *_trylock return on success?

On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Roger Larsson wrote: > Questions: > What are _trylocks supposed to return? It depends on the type of _trylock ;( > Does spin_trylock and down_trylock behave differently? > Why isn't the expected return value documented? The whole trylock stuff is, IMHO, a big mess.

CLONE_NAMESPACE, links for dirs and mount(2) for normal users questions

Hi, Long long ago, (March 2000) Alexander Viro replied to Pavel Machek: >> Am I right that from now on each process can have completely different >> view of filesystem like in plan9? > >Almost there ;-) And yes, the only thing we lack for proper namespaces is >the union-directories (clone() bit

[oops] Yenta on 2.4.0-test11 laptop (worked with test9)

Is anyone using Yenta on a sony vaio laptop (PII-400) with 2.4.0-test11 ? I can't even follow my own printk()s through the call to exca_writew() in the trace below, so the system might be getting corrupted earlier (possibly not in the cardbus code). The same .config works on this machine with

Re: 2.4.0-test11: "_isofs_bmap: block < 0"

Hello, Same here with CD 1 from SuSE 7.0-DE : Nov 25 18:16:03 sjoerd kernel: VFS: Disk change detected on device ide1(22,64) Nov 25 18:16:05 sjoerd kernel: ISO 9660 Extensions: RRIP_1991A Nov 25 18:16:05 sjoerd kernel: _isofs_bmap: block < 0 Using test11 and everything is a module. On 21 Nov

Re: gcc-2.95.2-51 is buggy

On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, Neil Brown wrote: > On Friday November 24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> ... RedHat's GCC snapshot "2.96" handles this case just fine. > > > > > Now, if you can isolate the relevant part of the diff between > > > 2.95.2 and RH 2.96... > > > > Maybe I have to be more

Re: Fasttrak100 questions...

Oh remember, I DEFINED the terms that the module could be created! Go and examine the wrapper and it is portions of the pdc202xx.c code that is mine. With that in mind, in order to use that GPL code, the restrictions and terms imposed were module exclusive. Regards, Andre Hedrick CTO

Re: Oops on 2.2.18-23 as pppd dial in server

"Jeff V. Merkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Was able to reproduce this Oops, but it took several days. Oops occurs > against 2.2.18-23. I had to copy this info from the console -- the > system was hard hung after the oops and even ksymoops was locked solid. what type of mounted filesystem

Re: Fasttrak100 questions...

On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote: > No, it does not. Distributing does. You will never get this right. You > can compile into your kernel anything you like as long as you don't > give it away. And you will never boot it because the resources conflict with out the module, go

Re: [PATCH] blindingly stupid 2.2 VM bug

On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > VM-global-*-7 has no known bugs AFIK. Sure, I don't use 2.2 anyway ;) Rik -- Hollywood goes for world dumbination, Trailer at 11. http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the

Re: setting up pppd dial-in on linux

Jeff, I am also VERY interested in this, particularly on getting modems to work with Linux at all. I'm not reading the list right now, but I'd appreciate any feedback you can throw my way on this. Esp. if you DO get it setup and working. It sure would be nice to see Linux FINALLY support

Re: 2.4.0-test11 (pre1, final) OOPS during boot/modprobe

On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 12:27:24PM +, Russell King wrote: > Keith Owens writes: > Steven probably wants to apply this patch to test11: How about we apply both that patch and this one? diff -u linux/Documentation/Changes.old linux/Documentation/Changes --- linux/Documentation/Changes.old

Announce: DProbes/LTT interoperability and custom event logging

As you've probably seen from Richard's announcement, it is now possible to use the LTT/DProbes pair to dynamically insert trace points anywhere in the system. That said, the added functionnality to LTT also enables kernel/ module programmers to dynamically add trace types and log the

Re: [PATCH] G450 support for matroxfb

On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 04:36:50PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > BTW, XF4.0.1e is also very unhappy on this hardware. > > Best regards, > > Petr Vandrovec > > [EMAIL

2.4.0-test{8..11} CONFIG_NETLINK*=y => unresolved symbol errors in several modules

Sorry if this is already reported; I'm not subscribed since it's way over my head still and there's too much else to do... so, please CC me if you need more input. I'm goofing around trying to get the right options set so I can run `dhcpd' and `vtun'... I accidently turned on the

Re: [PATCH] G450 support for matroxfb

> BTW, XF4.0.1e is also very unhappy on this hardware. > Best regards, > Petr Vandrovec > [EMAIL PROTECTED] does the Matrox driver work with it ? My G400 works very

Re: Patch(?): isapnp_card_id tables for all isapnp drivers in2.4.0-test11

On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Keith Owens wrote: > On Fri, 24 Nov 2000 15:37:33 -0800, > "Adam J. Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Note that this is not a "final" version. I plan to go > >through all of the changes and bracket all of these new tables > >with #ifdef MODULE...#endif so they do

Re: LKCD from SGI

Hello, in the last time I got several e-mails from you, but that must be a mistake because I do not know you and I don´t know why you send me these e-mails. Please check whether you have the address [EMAIL PROTECTED] in your address-book. Please delete this address!! In past you have put this

*_trylock return on success?

Hi, Background information: compiled and tested a test11 with the Montavista preemptive patch. After pressing Magic-SysRq-M all processes that tried to do IO hung in 'D' Last message "Buffer memory ..." Pressing Magic-SysRq-M again, all hung processes continued... Checking the patch it

anounce: Universal dynamic trace for Linux

You can now use IBM's DProbes with Opersys' Linux Trace Toolkit to provide a universal (dynamic) tracing capability for Linux. It is universal because it provides a common tracing mechanism for all executables whether in user or kernel space. It is dynamic because tracepoints are defined and

Re: [BUG?] test11 - oops on loading some modules

On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 15:59:30 +0200, Oren Held <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I patched my test10 directly to test11 (I didn't use the PREs, so I >can't Upgrade to modutils 2.3.21. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL

[BUG?] test11 - oops on loading some modules

Hello ! I patched my test10 directly to test11 (I didn't use the PREs, so I can't say which exact version caused my problem, though if it's important I can check that). Anyway, after I saw the problem, I downloaded the whole kernel tree to see if it's not just some patching problem, but it still

Re: [PATCH] blindingly stupid 2.2 VM bug

+ /* Only lower priority if we didn't make progress. */ + if (count == loopcount) + --priority; + loopcount = count; If the while loops around the page-recycling-methods were missing we would have just noticed as soon as we needed

Re: LKCD from SGI

On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 14:23:57 Keith Owens wrote: > On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 14:18:30 +0100, > "J . A . Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Could the default target install names int the std kernel be changed to > >System.map -> System.map-$(KERNELRELEASE) > >vmlinuz->

Re: LKCD from SGI

On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, J . A . Magallon wrote: > Could the default target install names int the std kernel be changed to > System.map -> System.map-$(KERNELRELEASE) > vmlinuz-> vmlinuz-$(KERNELRELEASE) > and then symlink to that ? > > I think everyone that has a stable2.2, a devel 2.2 and a

Re: setting up pppd dial-in on linux

You are not alone. And the problem gets even worse when you have to deal with ISDN devices. In my company´s data room we have all Linux servers running 365 days a year (minus upgrade time) and in one corner a lonely Windows NT Server 3.0 with 5 Client Access Licenses working as a RAS

Re: LKCD from SGI

On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 14:18:30 +0100, "J . A . Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 02:58:37 Keith Owens wrote: >> 2.5 kernel build wish list[1] has a couple of entries for standardising >> the install targets. My thinking (and I know that some people disagree >> with this)

Re: LKCD from SGI

On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 02:58:37 Keith Owens wrote: > > 2.5 kernel build wish list[1] has a couple of entries for standardising > the install targets. My thinking (and I know that some people disagree > with this) is that the standard targets of a linux compile are only > > * vmlinux > *

Re: 2.4.0-test11 (pre1, final) OOPS during boot/modprobe

On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 12:27:24 + (GMT), Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Keith Owens writes: >> On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 06:10:54 -0500 (EST), >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steven S. Dick) wrote: >> >2.4.0-test11-pre1 seems to have broken something. >> >I have no problems with test10, but

Re: 2.4.0-test11 (pre1, final) OOPS during boot/modprobe

Keith Owens writes: > On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 06:10:54 -0500 (EST), > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steven S. Dick) wrote: > >2.4.0-test11-pre1 seems to have broken something. > >I have no problems with test10, but test11-pre1 gives three oops > >messages during boot. test11-final gives the exact same OOPS

Re: Fasttrak100 questions...

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andre Hedrick) writes: >NO! >Doing so VIOLATES the terms and agreement that you obtained the BINARY >Soft-Raid Engine and the GPL terms of the kernel. >On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, James Lamanna wrote: [...] >> The question is, is there a way to compile this module into the kernel

Re: silly [< >] and other excess

Keith Owens writes: > "Albert D. Cahalan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Somebody else posted a reasonable hack for the [<>] problem. >> His proposal involved letting multiple values share the same >> markers, something like this: >> >> [] > > What happens if the line is wrapped before being fed

Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0" from drivers/ide (test11)

Rusty Russell writes: > What irritates about these monkey-see-monkey-do patches is that if I > initialize a variable to NULL, it's because my code actually relies on > it; I don't want that information eliminated. What information is lost? Unless you're working on a really strange machine which

Re: [PATCH] removal of "static foo = 0" from drivers/ide (test11)

J . A . Magallon writes: > ANSI rules for C say that uninitialized vars get a 0, but you can't trust > on the ANSI behaviour of a compiler. It has nothing to do with the compiler, but everything to do with the C startup code. In the Linux kernel, we have complete control over the C startup code

2.4.0-test11 (pre1, final) OOPS during boot/modprobe

2.4.0-test11-pre1 seems to have broken something. I have no problems with test10, but test11-pre1 gives three oops messages during boot. test11-final gives the exact same OOPS messages... Of the three, only the first one decodes to anything useful: Unable to handle kernel paging request at

Re: silly [< >] and other excess

On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 05:26:20 -0500 (EST), "Albert D. Cahalan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Somebody else posted a reasonable hack for the [<>] problem. >His proposal involved letting multiple values share the same >markers, something like this: > >[] What happens if the line is wrapped before

Re: PCI problem with an Olivetti M4

I've updated the http://www.gest.unipd.it/~iig0573/lspci.txt to include the output of pciconf -l from FreeBSD - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: max memory limits ???

>Matti Aarnio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Wed, Nov 22, 2000 at 03:37:09PM +0200, BenHanokh Gabriel wrote: >> can some1 explain the memory limits on the 2.4 kernel >> - what is the limit for user-space apps ? >At 32 bit systems: 3.5 GB with extreme tricks, 3 GB for more usual. user

PCI problem with an Olivetti M4

Hello I have an old PC, it's an Olivetti M4 (P166) and I tried to install linux on it. But I got a problem: just after LILO has loaded the kernel (after 'Loading..') the screen becomes black and I can't see anything. In other words the video card doesn't seem to work. I also

Re: silly [< >] and other excess

Russell King writes: > Albert D. Cahalan writes: >> Symbols: >> c00a __start >> c0105344 qfs_frob_directory >> c01a4600 qfs_cleaner >> c01a4b98 qfs_hash_file_record ... >> Well, that first symbol (__start) was really "jump +10", but the >> extra noise doesn't hurt anyone. You get what you

  1   2   >