On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 08:35:02AM +0100, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> A more ambitious way to proceed is to change spinlocks so they can sleep
> (not in interrupts of course). There would not be any extra overhead
Imagine what happens when a non sleeping spinlock in a interrupt waits
for a
hugang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have following code ,and I can not understand the mark line,who can tell
>me.thanks.
> 0ec7 xorl 0x400dec(,%eax,4),%ecx<-What it
>to do.
extern u_int32_t eax;
extern u_int32_t ecx;
{
u_int32_t *ptr;
Silly question:
can't we just hardwire `kgcc' into the build system and be done
with all this kwhich stuff? It's just a symlink
-
-
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
Alex Belits wrote:
>
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> > I don't doubt that if the 'power switch' method of shutdown becomes
> > popular we will discover some applications that have windows where they
> > can be hurt by sudden shutdown, even will full filesystem data state
> >
What is the compiler?
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> linux 2.2.18 with VM-global patch
> 128MB RAM
> AMD K6-3/366
> Star Office 5.2
>
> I exiting StarOffice, and a little later noticed my loadavg display
> widget was showing a high load average. top reports it at 6.
>
> Poking
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 09:29:48PM -0800, Asang K Dani wrote:
> hi everyone,
>I was trying to understand following piece of code in
> 'generic_file_read' (mm/filemap.c) for 2.2.18 kernel. The code
> segment
> is as follows:
>
>
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> Your latest changes to try_to_swap_out() does not seem to be obviously
> correct.
Heh. What a polite way of saying that you think I'm full of sh*t ;)
> Having swap_cnt == 0 does not necessarily mean that we successfully freed
> a page (look at
ludovic fernandez wrote:
> The following patch makes the kernel preemptable.
> It is against 2.4.0-prerelease on for i386 only.
> It should work for UP and SMP even though I
> didn't validate it on SMP.
> Comments are welcome.
I was expecting to see this sometime in 2.5, not quite so soon...
Hi Linus,
Your latest changes to try_to_swap_out() does not seem to be obviously
correct.
- if (mm->swap_cnt)
- mm->swap_cnt--;
+ if (!mm->swap_cnt)
+ return 1;
+
+ mm->swap_cnt--;
Having swap_cnt == 0 does not necessarily mean
>Date:Wed, 03 Jan 2001 22:08:33 -0800
>From: Pete Zaitcev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Are we going to use Miquel's patch? I cannot build fresh 2.2.x on
>plain RH6.2 without it. The 2.2.19-pre6 comes out without it. Or
>is "install new bash" the official answer? Alan?
>
>
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Dan Hollis wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Gerhard Mack wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Dan Hollis wrote:
> > > On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Gerhard Mack wrote:
> > > > Your comparing actual security with stack guarding? Stack guarding mearly
> > > > makes the attack diffrent.. rootkits
From: Ulrich Weigand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:Mon, 1 Jan 2001 23:15:26 +0100 (MET)
* Is there some reason why ptep_test_and_clear_young should
*not*, after all, flush the TLB?
Yes, because the accuracy of that state bit is not required to
be %100 perfect. Less SMP tlb
This may not be the right forum to ask this. If not, please let me know
where to ask.
I have a Debian box with 2 NICs. Both 100/full duplex. This machine is
running as a ftp proxy (T.Rex suite). As part of the traffic going through the
box, some streams have 1000k window size for a certain
Date:Wed, 03 Jan 2001 22:08:33 -0800
From: Pete Zaitcev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Are we going to use Miquel's patch? I cannot build fresh 2.2.x on
plain RH6.2 without it. The 2.2.19-pre6 comes out without it. Or
is "install new bash" the official answer? Alan?
I do not
Hi,
If the check for "count >= SWAP_MAP_MAX" in __get_swap_page is true, we
will end up trying to unlock a not-yet-locked spinlock.
Here goes a patch to change this.
--- linux/mm/swapfile.c.origThu Jan 4 04:10:08 2001
+++ linux/mm/swapfile.c Thu Jan 4 04:10:12 2001
@@ -90,8 +90,12 @@
Hello all
I have following code ,and I can not understand the mark line,who can tell
me.thanks.
--
0eb8 movb (%ebx),%al <>
0eba incl %ebx
0ebb movl %edi,%ecx
0ebd shrl $0x8,%ecx
0ec0
Are we going to use Miquel's patch? I cannot build fresh 2.2.x
on plain RH6.2 without it. The 2.2.19-pre6 comes out without it.
Or is "install new bash" the official answer? Alan?
-- Pete
--- linux-2.2.19-pre3/scripts/kwhichSun Dec 10 16:49:45 2000
+++ linux-2.2.19-pre3-p3/scripts/kwhich
Go write yourself a real OS.
45k text OS design sketch. Forth meets UNIX meets AmigaDos meets INTERCAL
meets a Teletype Model 37.
ftp://linux01.gwdg.de/pub/cLIeNUX/interim/design
Rick Hohensee
Forth, unix, cLIeNUX, and worse.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
David Brownell wrote:
> The root cause seems to be the Cardbus/PCI hotplug invocation not
> happening for you.
Yep.
> Was this with or without the "pcmcia_cs" package installed? My
> own take on it is that 2.4 _should_ hotplug that controller
> just fine if "pcmcia_cs" isn't installed.
hi everyone,
I was trying to understand following piece of code in
'generic_file_read' (mm/filemap.c) for 2.2.18 kernel. The code
segment
is as follows:
dest = (char *) page_address(page) + offset;
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001 23:51:31 -0500,
Frank Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hello,
> I received the following make dep error while compiling
>prerelease-ac5 .
>make -C acpi fastdep
>make[4]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux/drivers/acpi'
>/usr/src/linux/Rules.make:224: *** Recursive
Hallo,
I've tested 2.4.0prerelease pure - ac1-ac2-ac3-ac4-ac5 and my system crashed
whenever I left X.
Having switched back to 2.4.0-test13pre7 all is fine.
I'm no developer, so if you need more information, give me some hints.
kind regards
Norbert
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > I bet it long predates dcache though..
>
> Not too likely. It went in in 2.1.93. Apr 2 1998...
> Dcache was there ~50 versions before that.
Huh. Is there anything that prevents fragmentation in, say, growing
maildirs, where there's nothing but
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Oliver Xymoron wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> >
> > > Having preallocated blocks allocated immediately is deliberate:
> > > directories grow slowly and remain closed most of the time, so the
> > >
Hello,
I received the following make dep
error while compiling prerelease-ac5 .
Regards,
Frank
make -C acpi
fastdepmake[4]: Entering directory
`/usr/src/linux/drivers/acpi'/usr/src/linux/Rules.make:224: *** Recursive
variable `CFLAGS' references itself (eventually). Stop.make[4]:
On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, Rich Baum wrote:
> Here is a patch that removes more compile warnings from 2.4.0-
> prerelease. I left out files that have been fixed by Alan or myself in
> the ac kernels. I'll add more options to my config tomorrow to try to
> find more of these warnings.
> -#endif
Mind checking out the current prerelease-diff? It fixes this, and cleans
up some remaining things (now that we don't task-switch into bdflush for
all our cleanup, 'nrefill' should really be much lower to get smoother
behavior).
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
>
> > Having preallocated blocks allocated immediately is deliberate:
> > directories grow slowly and remain closed most of the time, so the
> > normal preallocation regime of only preallocating open files
On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 09:39:43AM +0530, Sourav Sen wrote:
>
> Ya, I also noticed if it is skb_push() it may work, but where is
> skb_push() called?? ... the following
> is part of the fn. call trace for udp send :
>
> in ip_build_xmit()
>
> sock_alloc_send_skb() -- allocates
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> Hi Linus,
>
> I've noticed you changed bdflush to do synchronous IO on page_launder().
>
> That seems to be a performance problem, since kflushd will have to wait
> for dirty buffers to get synced instead looping on the inactive dirty
> list
Oh, and I forgot to mention
I'm not subscribed to this mailing list, so please be sure to
reply privately with any comments, questions, etc.
Regards,
Kevin
- Original Message -
From: "Kevin Traas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday,
Greetings everyone,
After much frustration in trying to get Debian GNU/Linux (my distro of
choice) installed on a Dell PowerEdge 2450, I've finally found success!
My problem was finding kernel support for the onboard PERC 3/Si RAID
Controller (Adaptec OEM chipset) so that I could store my root
Ya, I also noticed if it is skb_push() it may work, but where is
skb_push() called?? ... the following
is part of the fn. call trace for udp send :
in ip_build_xmit()
sock_alloc_send_skb() -- allocates the sk_buff
skb_reserve() -- advances the data pointer to by
in smp.h macro
#define smp_num_cpus
etc...
have no effect on the kernel_stat.h file .
if might be undefined or declared elsewhere as an int or such...I added
#define smp_test_num_cpus
and replaced the occurence in kernel_stat.h and it worked ok
and tried to find where the smp_num_cpus define
I just submitted an article entitled "Why We Should All Test the New Linux
Kernel" to
http://advogato.org
the article is at
http://advogato.org/article/224.html
If you're not familiar with it, Advogato is an online community for Free
Software developers. I would venture to say any Linux
Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 10:20:37PM -0500, David Huggins-Daines wrote:
> > Dan Aloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > This preliminary, small patch prevents execution of system calls which
> > > were executed from a writable segment.
> >
> > How
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 10:20:37PM -0500, David Huggins-Daines wrote:
> Dan Aloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This preliminary, small patch prevents execution of system calls which
> > were executed from a writable segment.
>
> How does signal return work, then?
Newer glibc sets a
Dan Aloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This preliminary, small patch prevents execution of system calls which
> were executed from a writable segment.
How does signal return work, then?
--
David Huggins-Daines- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
Hi Linus,
I've noticed you changed bdflush to do synchronous IO on page_launder().
That seems to be a performance problem, since kflushd will have to wait
for dirty buffers to get synced instead looping on the inactive dirty
list more often.
Here is a patch to change this.
---
Hi Miles,
>The whole
> "Bad PCI invocation" error was a red herring, sorry.
Not an endangered species ... even if Tux does like to
snack on them! :-)
> I have since gone in a tested test12-pre5, test12-pre6 and
> test12-pre8. test12-pre5 works. test12-pre6 fails utterly.
That's
> > The proximate cause of that Oops looked to be in one of the
> > UHCI drivers, but of course it's also possible that it was
> > triggered by driver misbehavior.
>
> You didn't look hard enough. 8;)
I suspected you had ... :-)
> hub_thread got a disconnect event, called usb_disconnect,
>
Hello,
For hackers,
The following patch makes the kernel preemptable.
It is against 2.4.0-prerelease on for i386 only.
It should work for UP and SMP even though I
didn't validate it on SMP.
Comments are welcome.
NOTES: since the lock implementation is modified,
you need obviously to re-compile
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 04:54:38PM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> Win: 0
> Loss: cost of find_vma() (and down(>mmap_sem), BTW) on every system
It could actually be optimized a lot, e.g. by just read/writing to a byte
in the caller's current code page and handling the exception.
But I agree
There was also a big change to pci/setup_bus.c and pci/setup_bus.h
from Ivan Kokshaysky in test12-pre6. Those changes seem like another
likely candidate.
Miles
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here's the pci.c patch from test12-pre6. Does anything in this patch
look like it might cause the cardbus device detection and calling of
hotplug to break?
diff -u --recursive --new-file v2.4.0-test11/linux/drivers/pci/pci.c
linux/drivers/pci/pci.c
--- v2.4.0-test11/linux/drivers/pci/pci.c
On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 02:09:56AM +0100, Peter Osterlund wrote:
> should say that it is obsolete. I think obsolete means "you should never
> ever have to use this stuff".
Agreed.
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
> Diego Liziero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >->1: The sound module for my mad16 based card plays the bytes swapped
> > (the same module recompiled with egcs-2.91.66 works fine).
>
> Could you try to figure this one out a bit more? This sounds like a real
> compiler issue, whether it is
Please apply.
- Arnaldo
--- linux-2.4.0-prerelease/drivers/isdn/isdn_net.c Mon Jan 1 14:42:26 2001
+++ linux-2.4.0-prerelease.acme/drivers/isdn/isdn_net.c Wed Jan 3 18:02:44 2001
@@ -19,7 +19,10 @@
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 09:09:01PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Ever heard of slocate / updatedb ?
ever heard of somebody killing all other tasks while updatedb is running?
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 01:08:01AM +0100, Peter Osterlund wrote:
> What do you think about the following patch? It also works for all the
> tests mentioned in my previous message.
I'm worried somebody needed to disable LP_CAREFUL to print, probably it's not a
big deal to keep it. About the
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Dan Hollis wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Gerhard Mack wrote:
> > Your comparing actual security with stack guarding? Stack guarding mearly
> > makes the attack diffrent.. rootkits are already available to defeat it.
>
> url?
Ugh do you have any idea how hard it is to find 2
If this makes it go away, then by all means apply this patch;
though I don't quite see what the failure mode would be.
The proximate cause of that Oops looked to be in one of the
UHCI drivers, but of course it's also possible that it was
triggered by driver misbehavior.
Have we identified
On Wed, Jan 03 2001, William Stearns wrote:
> Good day, all,
> This is just meant as an informational message, not a complaint.
> Ted, could you note that this still exists on 2.4.0-test13-pre7 in the
> todo page? Many thanks.
>
> [1.] One line summary of the problem:
> Loopback
Also attaching a file of the diff since stuff got munged through the email.
-Original Message-
From: Villalovos, John L [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:17 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Fix for Real Audio IP Masquerade
Diff
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
: I'm worried somebody needed to disable LP_CAREFUL to print, probably
: it's not a big deal to keep it.
I removed it because otherwise I would have had to do twice as many tests
to convince myself that all combinations of flags and printer states
> Anything else, and somebody like you will be tempted to muck with it.
> We've seen spelling changes and column alignment break things. We've
> seen parsers break on /proc/cpuinfo because someone decided whitespace
> and extra columns might be nice. XML wouldn't be immune to the recent
lol...
> From: David Brownell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> If this makes it go away, then by all means apply this patch;
> though I don't quite see what the failure mode would be.
Josh didn't have HOTPLUG defined and he has
confirmed to me that this patch fixes the oops.
I'll forward it again.
>
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Gerhard Mack wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Dan Hollis wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Gerhard Mack wrote:
> > > Your comparing actual security with stack guarding? Stack guarding mearly
> > > makes the attack diffrent.. rootkits are already available to defeat it.
> > url?
> Ugh
David Brownell wrote:
>> I am writing to let you know that in all test12-pre6+ kernels,
>> I get a "Bad PCI invocation" error when hotplug attempts to
>> handle the insertion of a USB host-controller into a Cardbus
>> slot.
>
>
> That's new info ... you'd previously thought that it wasn't even
The beginning of of the dmesg output is unfortunately lost. This is an Intel
Nightshade mobo with dual PIII/450. It's happy under 2.2.x.
PAT present.
PSE present.
MMX present.
FXSR present.
XMM present.
Bootup CPU
Processor #0 Pentium(tm) Pro APIC version 17
Linus/Alan,
please accept the following patch for knfsd in 2.4.0-prerelease.
What it does is extend the protection offered by s_nfsd_free_path_sem
to cover the first call to nfsd_iget.
I had previously avoided this as I didn't think it was necessary and
it ment that the semaphore wasn't
> Would XML be considered human readable enough for /proc files? If not,
> how about a /xproc filesystem ( maybe as a kernel build option ), same
> as /proc but uses an xml grammer for reporting.
> I can see tons of uses for this, no more 'fuzzy' parsing for gui
> configuration tools, resource
Diff against 2.2.19pre6 though the file hasn't changed since Oct 27, 1998.
This fixes a problem in the ip_masq_raudio.c module where it assumes that
all TCP headers are 20 bytes long. Some implementations of the Real Player
clients use the TCP options section of the TCP header. Thus these TCP
I have an ASUS P3V4X motherboard with an ACPI BIOS. This is a desktop machine,
and while APM is normally of concern for laptops, it seems to me from what I
read in the kernel config help that I should be able to make the machine power
itself off.
If I have ACPI enabled but not APM, when I do
Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 10:00:59PM +0100, Peter Osterlund wrote:
> > off. Apparently the printer tells the computer it is OK to send data
> > to it when it is off.
>
> So then parport_write is probably buggy because it's losing data silenty while
If I mount and unmount a CD on my ThinkPad 600X under 2.4.0-prerelease, the
drive never unlocks and I can't eject the CD. It doesn't matter whether I read
any data from it or not before the umount command. Subsequent attempts to
access the drive in any way -- mount, dd, etc. -- hang and the
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Gerhard Mack wrote:
> Your comparing actual security with stack guarding? Stack guarding mearly
> makes the attack diffrent.. rootkits are already available to defeat it.
url?
-Dan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Dan Hollis wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Dan Aloni wrote:
> > Anyway, while it is agreed that you can't completely eliminate exploits,
> > it is recommended that, it should be at least harder to create them, maybe
> > it can even minimize the will to write them.
>
> The
linux 2.2.18 with VM-global patch
128MB RAM
AMD K6-3/366
Star Office 5.2
I exiting StarOffice, and a little later noticed my loadavg display
widget was showing a high load average. top reports it at 6.
Poking about, I found all the soffice.bin processes still hanging
around.
Looking with top,
Excuse-me but, am I wrong or is this thread completely useless?
Since Alan Cox and I said that Solar Design has done a complete patch to
do the same, and since this patch is alvailble to everybody at
http://www.openwall.com in that way that everybody can download it and
have the choice to
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Diego Liziero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>->1: The sound module for my mad16 based card plays the bytes swapped
> (the same module recompiled with egcs-2.91.66 works fine).
Could you try to figure this one out a bit more? This sounds like a real
compiler
On 2001.01.04 Kervin Pierre wrote:
>
> hello,
>
> Would XML be considered human readable enough for /proc files? If not,
> how about a /xproc filesystem ( maybe as a kernel build option ), same
> as /proc but uses an xml grammer for reporting.
> I can see tons of uses for this, no more
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Dan Aloni wrote:
> Anyway, while it is agreed that you can't completely eliminate exploits,
> it is recommended that, it should be at least harder to create them, maybe
> it can even minimize the will to write them.
The argument against these sort of protection mechanisms
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Dan Aloni wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> > > > > without breaking anything. It also reports of such calls by using printk.
> > > > Get real.
> > >
> > > Why do you always have to be insulting alex? Sheesh.
> >
> > Sigh... Not intended to be an
On 03 Jan 2001 21:53:50 +,
Graham Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>My 2.4.0-prerelease freezes solid on certain serial port events. The
>ones I have seen (and are both repeatable) are when powering off the
>modem and powering it on causes the system to hang solid. Also if an
>incoming call
Hi!
I've just released LOMAC v1.0 - an LKM for Linux 2.2 kernels that
implements a form of Low Water-Mark Mandatory Access Control (MAC) to
protect the integrity of processes and data from viruses, Trojan
horses, malicious remote users, and compromised root daemons. LOMAC
is designed for
Marc ZYNGIER wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Having just started playing with IrDA on my dual celeron (Abit "APIC
> error..." BP6), I managed to kill it every single time (NMI watchdog
> in handle_IRQ_event) while connecting to my mobile phone (in fact,
> when closing the connection to the phone. even
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 05:47:39PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Not really. Under very high VFS loads we'd just scan
> > through the list twice and free the entries anyway.
>
> You're obviously wrong.
>
> The higher was the load, the faster your
> recent kernels. It looks like there may be a slight drop
> in performance for -ac5. For -ac4 and -ac5, the throughput
-ac5 touches stuff which would have performance effects. That would be
reasonable to suspect.
- Rik's partial page changes
- A couple of other
Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Linus, Alan, Mike,
>
> the following patch sets PF_MEMALLOC for the current task
> in __alloc_pages() to avoid infinite recursion when we try
> to free memory from __alloc_pages().
>
> Please apply the patch below, which fixes this (embarrasing)
>
hello,
Would XML be considered human readable enough for /proc files? If not,
how about a /xproc filesystem ( maybe as a kernel build option ), same
as /proc but uses an xml grammer for reporting.
I can see tons of uses for this, no more 'fuzzy' parsing for gui
configuration tools, resource
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Dan Aloni wrote:
> Did you notice that question was ambiguous? I understood that sentence in
> its other meaning, i.e, someone insulting Alex ;-)
Well, _that_ definitely takes more than posting a patch ;-)
> Anyway, while it is agreed that you can't completely eliminate
> On Linux, they use INT 80 system calls to execute functions in the kernel
> as root, when the stack is smashed as a result of a buffer overflow bug in
> various server software.
>
> This preliminary, small patch prevents execution of system calls which
> were executed from a writable segment.
Hi,
I have a strange problem (preventing me from testing the latest
2.4 kernel ... *sigh*) with my LVM setup.
The latest LVM utils + the latest kernel works just fine on my
test machine, but breaks horribly on my workstation. The only
difference I have found is that one PV of my VG has "NOT
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Mark Zealey wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Dan Hollis wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Dan
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Mark Zealey wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Dan Hollis wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Dan Aloni wrote:
> > > > > without breaking anything. It also reports of
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > > > without breaking anything. It also reports of such calls by using printk.
> > > Get real.
> >
> > Why do you always have to be insulting alex? Sheesh.
>
> Sigh... Not intended to be an insult. Plain and simple advice. Idea is
[..]
Did you
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Dan Hollis wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > > On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Dan Aloni wrote:
> > > > without breaking anything. It also reports of such calls by using printk.
> > > Get real.
> >
> > Why do
This is probably due to the source being 'none', but the shm mount point
can be mounted twice at the same mount point.
Shouldn't mount(2) return -EBUSY in this case?
# cat /etc/mtab
/dev/hda4 / ext2 rw,errors=remount-ro,errors=remount-ro 0 0
proc /proc proc rw 0 0
devpts /dev/pts devpts
Kai Germaschewski writes:
> The patch is right, the explanation was wrong. Sorry, I didn't CC l-k when
> I found what was really going on. Other source files used a global
> initialized variable "divert_if" as well, so this became the same one as
> the one referenced in isdn_common.c. That's why
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Dan Hollis wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Dan Aloni wrote:
> > > without breaking anything. It also reports of such calls by using printk.
> > Get real.
>
> Why do you always have to be insulting alex? Sheesh.
Sigh... Not
I ran dbench 48 four times in succession for the following
recent kernels. It looks like there may be a slight drop
in performance for -ac5. For -ac4 and -ac5, the throughput
dropped on run #3. That's probably just a fluke. I'll repeat
these runs later when I get a chance.
This was
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> On 3 Jan 01 at 10:54, Tom Rini wrote:
> > I agree this sounds good. I just think it's too late to do it now. :)
> >
> > The vmode/cmode/vesa number stuff should stick around in 2.4 (it's too late
> > now to remove it) but documented as obsolete, and
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Dan Aloni wrote:
> +
> +void print_bad_syscall(struct task_struct *task)
> +{
> + printk("process %s (%d) tried to syscall from an executable segment!\n",
>task->comm, task->pid);
> +}
Hmm, should be "writable segment", perhaps ;-)
--
Dan Aloni
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
[1.] System crash killing idle task
[2.] I returned home after 8 hours of disuse to find the system crashed
with various jibberish on the screen. As I could get no response, I could
not copy all of the information I saw, but wrote down the final lines
after the screenfull of jibberish:
Code: 89
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 11:32:52PM +0200, Marko Kreen wrote:
> -udelay(15000); /* delay for 50 (15) ms */
> +mdelay(15); /* delay for 50 (15) ms */
Per Mark Hahn suggestion here is a patch that fixes the weird
comments too. This is cumulative to the previous patch.
--
marko
---
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 06:44:59PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > Third, the nvram_read_byte needs to be protected by CONFIG_NVRAM.
> >
> > I'd really like to move the nvram part to mac_fb_find_mode() in
Hi all,
Having just started playing with IrDA on my dual celeron (Abit "APIC
error..." BP6), I managed to kill it every single time (NMI watchdog
in handle_IRQ_event) while connecting to my mobile phone (in fact,
when closing the connection to the phone. even 'cat /dev/ircomm0' will
do...). This
> I get the following errors during the final linking of 2.4.0-prerelease
> on a Sparc IPX (sun4c). .config available upon request.
sun4c is badly broken at the moment for other reasons. However the problems
you are seeing should be fixed in cvs.
Anton
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Dan Aloni wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> > > This preliminary, small patch prevents execution of system calls which
> > > were executed from a writable segment. It was tested and seems to work,
> > > without breaking anything. It also reports of
1 - 100 of 475 matches
Mail list logo
