On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 10:21:07PM +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2007-06-21T22:07:40, Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Plus IIRC we have something like "AA has to allocate path-sized
> > buffers along every syscall".
>
> That is an implementation bug though. I'm sure we
On Jun 21, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Wouldn't that defeat the entire purpose of the GPLv3? Couldn't
>> > I take any
>> > GPLv3 program, combine it with a few lines of Linux code, and
>> > Tivoize the
>> > result?
>> No. This is not permission to relicense. This is
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Is there some hope that at least the Linux kernel interface definition files and
everything recursively included from these files will be rewritten in vanilla
ANSI C?
this has been discussed many times and the answer is that the kernel is
not gong
On Thursday 21 June 2007, Carsten Otte wrote:
>
> This is an updated version of my bugfix patch. Yan Zheng pointed out,
> that ext2_remount lacks checking if -o xip should be enabled or not.
> This patch checks for presence of direct_access on the backing block
> device and if the blocksize meets
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 12:57:33AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote:
> Well, I'm using SuSE Pro 9.3 (excellent choice by the way),
> coming with kernel 2.6.10-SuSE, on a ATI laptop, and the
> drivers privided wouldn't compile (suspend & freinds). The
> SATA disks were only supported from 2.6.15
On 22/06/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, "Jesper Juhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 21/06/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> BTW, I should probably have made clear that, as usual, I was speaking
>> my own mind, not speaking on behalf
On Thursday 21 June 2007, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
>
> I'd like to make a read-only /proc file which supports inotify -- that
> is, the kernel can send change notifications to userland via the
> inotify mechanism. I've found fsnotify_modify() (in
> include/linux/fsnotify.h) which seems to do what
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 04:13:27 EST, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> On 6/21/07, Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 12:22:01PM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
>> > >> The build seems to fail because of:
>> > >> ERROR: "ROOT_DEV" [drivers/mtd/maps/nettel.ko] undefined!
>>
On Thursday 21 June 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> If you have another subject that should be brought up then please contact
> me.
- Interface for preallocating hugetlbfs pages per node instead of system wide
- architecture independent in-kernel API for enumerating CPU sockets with
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
>
> Perhaps we want to throw some sliding window algorithms at it. We can
> bound requests and total I/O and if requests get retired too slowly we
> can shrink the windows. Alternately, we can grow the window if we're
> retiring things within our desired
On Jun 21, 2007, "Jesper Juhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 21/06/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> BTW, I should probably have made clear that, as usual, I was speaking
>> my own mind, not speaking on behalf of FSFLA or Red Hat, with whom I'm
>> associated, and
On 06/21/2007 07:01 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:34:20PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>> Even the good ones that get lots of fixes aren't all that good. The
>> biggest problem ATM is that suspend is badly broken and keeps getting
>> worse...
>
> I wasn't under the
On 22/06/07, Zoltán HUBERT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday 22 June 2007 00:29, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > You might think it's easy for me to simply "use" Linux
> > and complain while you're doing the hard stuff. As it
> > happens, the current development/stable model makes our
> > life as
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 05:15:03PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2007, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:39:07AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> >> - the kernel Linux could use code from GPLv3 projects
>
> > ... and inherit GPLv3 additional
On 06/21/2007 11:49 PM, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
Please consider that we are living in a REAL world, and not
Disney-Land.
Well, I don't know about that so much; I've always thought Linus bears a
striking resemblance to Mickey Mouse.
More to the point though -- could you please consider just
I didn't get a comment on my suggestion for a quick and dirty fix for
-assume-clean issues...
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Neil Brown wrote:
On Thursday June 14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it's now churning away 'rebuilding' the brand new array.
a few questions/thoughts.
why does it need to do a
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Peter Rabbitson wrote:
I have captured dmesg output without mem[5], with mem=3900M[6] and
mem=2048M[7].
What does /proc/mtrr look like in the two cases?
Identical for mem=3900 and without it.
reg00: base=0x ( 0MB), size=2048MB: write-back, count=1
reg01:
Hi
After many hours to testing, we found that the Hardware Watchdog Timer
module causes our motherboard's BIOS CPU fan control to stop
controlling the fan. On Linux bootup, the fan speed stays constant all
the time.
Setup:
- kernel 2.6.20.1 and 2.6.21.5
- iTCO_wdt loaded with ICH4 chip on
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:33:18 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > git-r8169-fixup.patch
> >
> This causes a compile failure:
>
> /home/jeremy/hg/xen/paravirt/linux/drivers/net/r8169.c: In function
> 'rtl8169_rx_interrupt':
>
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:34:20PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> Even the good ones that get lots of fixes aren't all that good. The
> biggest problem ATM is that suspend is badly broken and keeps getting
> worse...
I wasn't under the impression suspend had really ever worked. Such a
messy
On Friday 22 June 2007 00:29, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > You might think it's easy for me to simply "use" Linux
> > and complain while you're doing the hard stuff. As it
> > happens, the current development/stable model makes our
> > life as "users" more and more difficult.
>
> In what way?
Well,
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 11:20:59AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 11:14 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 20 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > Perhaps our queues are too long - if the VFS _does_ back off, it'll take
> > > >
On Friday 22 June 2007 00:52, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
> > So I feel that a turning-point is coming where a really
> > really really (x 15) stable and reliable kernel is
> > NEEDED.
>
> Not satisfied with 2.6.16.y or one of the "enterprise"
> distro kernels?
so why not call
Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
> So I feel that a turning-point is coming where a really
> really really (x 15) stable and reliable kernel is NEEDED.
Not satisfied with 2.6.16.y or one of the "enterprise" distro kernels?
--
Stefan Richter
-=-=-=== -==- =-==-
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
To unsubscribe
Hi all,
you might know that since ~ 2 years, the Sun Studio compilers
are available for Linux. Given the fact that they typically produce
faster code than GCC and that they offer more debug/optimizing features,
they are worth testing.
While it is no problem to use Sun Studio for
On 06/21/2007 06:29 PM, Jesper Juhl wrote:
>
> I myself have argued that we should be focusing more on stability and
> regression fixing, but I'm not so sure that a 2.6.7 devel branch would
> solve this. In general the 2.6.x.y -stable kernels seem to be doing
> the job pretty good.
>
Even the
On 21/06/07, Zoltán HUBERT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
All people who might read this know that traditionally
stable releases are even numbered and development branches
are odd numbered. This changed during late develoment of
2.6, according to my analysis because of the "invention" of
GIT
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>
> While debugging a Linux driver on my ARM platform (AT91), I switched on the
> 2.6.22-rc5 kernel. While reconfiguring it I selected CONFIG_SLUB as a SLAB
> allocator.
>
> The sd/mmc driver I tried to run is vanilla driver which never, until now,
>
> Second, Oracle is now working on Btrfs (if ever a FS needed a better
> name... is that pronounced ButterFS?).
(In our silliest moments, yes. Absolutely.)
- z
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo
Vojtech agreed to pass usblp over to me, so if you find bugs don't bug him.
Signed-off-by: Pete Zaitcev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Vojtech Pavlik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -3702,12 +3702,12 @@ L: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
W:
On Friday 22 June 2007 00:08, you wrote:
> > So I feel that a turning-point is coming where a really
> > really really (x 15) stable and reliable kernel is
> > NEEDED.
>
> Its incredibly hard to keep a stable kernel side API/ABI
> by just backporting fixes. Fortunately you can pay
> vendors to do
I forgot to CC the list in my response to Alexey.
I plan to address Alexey's concerns in a couple of days (as soon as I
get past the OLS push).
Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
Can we get another user to justify this generalizing?
Systemtap has plans to use the GTSC also.
--
David Wilder
IBM
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 17:47 -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>> On 06/21/2007 05:04 PM, Tim Gardner wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Commit e9e2cdb412412326c4827fc78ba27f410d837e6e breaks boot on a Dell
>>> E1501 unless 'acpi=off' is specified (also tried nolapic and nohpet but
>>> it
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 23:55 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > X2 Mobile Technology TL-50' CPU, but its booting 32 bit SMP (make
> 1.) are you booting a 32bit or a 64 bit kernel ?
Sigh, I'm too tired :)
tglx
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> and we all know this. The un-ending stable ABI argument
> goes into this same direction.
We don't have a stable ABI argument. Linus and others have repeatedly
made this clear; Stable user space ABI is important (sysfs developers
please note 8)). Stable kernel ABI/API not going to happen.
> So
> sd 0:0:0:0 [sda] Done: 0xeff3aba0 TIMEOUT
> sd 0:0:0:0 [sda] Result: host_byte=DID_OK driver_byte=DRV_OK, SUG_OK
> sd 0:0:0:0 [sda] CDB: Read(10): 28 00 00 ... 00 08 00
> sd 0:0:0:0 [sda] scsi host busy 1 failed 0
> ata_scsi_timed_out: ENTER
> ata_scsi_timed_out: EXIT, ret=0
>
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 22:57 +0200, Rudolf Marek wrote:
> Hello Soeren,
>
> Sorry for the delay.
>
> I'm ccing all lists maybe some other people are interested. There is known
> errata AE18 which prevents coretemp from working correctly on some mobile
> Core
> processors (family 6 model e). My
On 06/21/2007 05:49 PM, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
>
> So I feel that a turning-point is coming where a really
> really really (x 15) stable and reliable kernel is NEEDED.
I'll say.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 17:47 -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> On 06/21/2007 05:04 PM, Tim Gardner wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Commit e9e2cdb412412326c4827fc78ba27f410d837e6e breaks boot on a Dell
> > E1501 unless 'acpi=off' is specified (also tried nolapic and nohpet but
> > it made no substantive
On 06/21/2007 05:04 PM, Tim Gardner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Commit e9e2cdb412412326c4827fc78ba27f410d837e6e breaks boot on a Dell
> E1501 unless 'acpi=off' is specified (also tried nolapic and nohpet but
> it made no substantive difference). This laptop is an 'AMD Turion(tm) 64
> X2 Mobile Technology
Hello gentlemen (and ladies ?)
As a power-user (NOT a hacker) I kindly ask you to please
change the naming scheme and come back to the traditional
model, and release a stable kernel while working on a
develoment branch.
I'm not on the [lkml] so should you answer please CC my
e-mail: [EMAIL
On Thursday, 21 June 2007 21:39, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > I'll see if I can reproduce your problem here.
> >
> > Yes, I can. It's only necessary to load usb-storage (without any devices
> > actually using it) and it fails device_suspend()
Hi,
> > If a process uses read() it needs some executable and writable memory. We do
> > check for this in mprotect(). There is a problem with the i386-architecture,
> > because it allows execution of any readable page (except with newer
> > processors). But beyond that ugliness of i386, it
On 06/18/2007 04:05 PM, Aaron Porter wrote:
> Reproducable, every time nfs-kernel-server exits:
>
> nfsd: unexporting all filesystems
> BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 6b6b6b6f
> printing eip:
> f92a7751
> *pde = 6b6b6b6b
> Oops: [#1]
> PREEMPT SMP
>
> > queue ? You are overestimating IDE ;)
>
> He's not -- there is queued commands support since ATA[PI]-5. I'm not
> sure
> why but Linux decided not to support it.
Almost no hardware supports it and the functionality is really really
ugly to use when it works at all - NCQ is rather more
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 04:41:28PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > Talk is cheap, but unless YOU will do it your emails will only be a
> > > waste of bandwidth.
> >
> > Thanks, and good luck with involving people with this kind of response!
>
> It's simply
Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> Everyone is invited to the NUMA BOF at the Ottawa Linux Symposium
>
> Friday Jun 29th, 2007 19:00 - 20:00 in Rockhopper
>
> The main interest seems to be a discussion on the use of memory policies.
> Lee Schermerhorn will talk a bit about his work and then I may say
>
Hi,
Commit e9e2cdb412412326c4827fc78ba27f410d837e6e breaks boot on a Dell
E1501 unless 'acpi=off' is specified (also tried nolapic and nohpet but
it made no substantive difference). This laptop is an 'AMD Turion(tm) 64
X2 Mobile Technology TL-50' CPU, but its booting 32 bit SMP (make
defconfig).
On 2007-06-21T16:59:54, Stephen Smalley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or can access the data under a different path to which their profile
> does give them access, whether in its final destination or in some
> temporary file processed along the way.
Well, yes. That is intentional.
Your point is?
From: Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 23:15:17 +0200
> sys_ioctl was only exported for our first version of compat ioctl
> handling. Now that the whole compat ioctl handling mess is more or
> less sorted out there are no more modular users left and we can kill it.
>
sys_ioctl was only exported for our first version of compat ioctl
handling. Now that the whole compat ioctl handling mess is more or
less sorted out there are no more modular users left and we can kill it.
There's one exception and that's sparc64's solaris compat module, but
sparc64 has it's own
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> With a mere permission to combine, I can only enforce these provisions
> over my own code.
What does "my own code" mean when we're talking about derivative works and
code in the codebase influencing the design of later code? Code from one
module gets copied into
* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > btw., back then we also tried a spin_is_locked() based inner loop
> > but it didnt help the ->tree_lock lockups either. In any case i very
> > much agree that the 'nicer' looping should be added
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 03:20:08PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> > No, i don't agree at all.
> >
> > In this case, "no config needed" == "not possible to debug suspend
> > problems".
>
> No, sorry.
>
> My proposed solution is "figure out which console drivers can survive
> being on while
Hi,
On Thursday, 21 June 2007 00:24, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> On Thursday 21 June 2007 08:09:26 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 19 June 2007 23:33, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 19 June 2007 13:18, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > > Hi all
> > > >
> > > > Here's what I have
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 20:54 +0200, Olaf Hering wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Will Schmidt wrote:
> > >
> > > I'll second that. The obvious gotcha is that on a G5, the windfarm
> > > drivers don't get automatically selected, thus the fans run at full
* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > damn, i first wrote up an explanation about why that ugly __delay(1) is
> > there (it almost hurts my eyes when i look at it!) but then deleted it
> > as superfluous :-/
>
> I'm fine with a delay,
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> btw., back then we also tried a spin_is_locked() based inner loop but it
> didnt help the ->tree_lock lockups either. In any case i very much agree
> that the 'nicer' looping should be added again - the patch below does
> that. (build and boot
Hi,
recently have started to see this in my dmesg:
NETDEV WATCHDOG: eth0: transmit timed out
sky2 eth0: tx timeout
sky2 eth0: transmit ring 449 .. 408 report=449 done=449
sky2 eth0: disabling interface
sky2 eth0: enabling interface
sky2 eth0: ram buffer 48K
sky2 eth0: Link is up at 1000 Mbps,
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 21:54 +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2007-06-21T15:42:28, James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > A veto is not a technical argument. All technical arguments (except for
> > > "path name is ugly, yuk yuk!") have been addressed, have they not?
> > AppArmor
Hello Soeren,
Sorry for the delay.
I'm ccing all lists maybe some other people are interested. There is known
errata AE18 which prevents coretemp from working correctly on some mobile Core
processors (family 6 model e). My driver refuses to load and now thanks to
soeren will not crash ;)
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> damn, i first wrote up an explanation about why that ugly __delay(1) is
> there (it almost hurts my eyes when i look at it!) but then deleted it
> as superfluous :-/
I'm fine with a delay, but the __delay(1) is simply not "correct". It
doesn't do
The procfs-guide claims that 'the parameter start doesn't seem to be used
anywhere in the kernel'. This is out of date. In linux/fs/proc/generic.c
we find a very nice description of the parameters to read_func. The
appended patch replaces the bogus description with this (as far as I know)
* Oliver Pinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> In all kernel version on my system already see this locking api
> result:
it's OK:
>
> 145 out of 218 testcases failed, as expected. |
>
> > Wouldn't that defeat the entire purpose of the GPLv3? Couldn't
> > I take any
> > GPLv3 program, combine it with a few lines of Linux code, and
> > Tivoize the
> > result?
> No. This is not permission to relicense. This is permission to
> combine. Each author still gets to enforce the
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
If it's input-only, then you can't possibly harm the operation of the
network by only listening in, can you?
Ok, so you consider any anti-piracy measures to be
On 21/06/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
BTW, I should probably have made clear that, as usual, I was speaking
my own mind, not speaking on behalf of FSFLA or Red Hat, with whom I'm
associated, and certainly not on behalf of FSF, with whom I'm not
associated. Just in case
* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anybody who ever waits for a lock by busy-looping over it is BUGGY,
> dammit!
btw., back then we also tried a spin_is_locked() based inner loop but it
didnt help the ->tree_lock lockups either. In any case i very much agree
that the 'nicer'
Linus Torvalds a écrit :
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
We don't do nesting locking either, for exactly the same reason. Are
nesting locks "easier"? Absolutely. They are also almost always a sign of
a *bug*. So making spinlocks and/or mutexes nest by default is just a way
to
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> yeah. I think Linux is i think the only OS on the planet that is using
> the movb trick for unlock, it even triggered a hardware erratum ;)
I'm pretty sure others do it too.
Maybe not on an OS level (but I actually doubt that - I'd be surprised if
Hi,
I just realized, working on my marker infrastructure, that a lot of
__attribute__((section(" "))) should probably come along with an
aligned() attribute. Since there are no data structures of size greater
or equal to 32 bytes put in these sections later referred to by
__sectionname_start[]
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> If it's input-only, then you can't possibly harm the operation of the
>> network by only listening in, can you?
> Ok, so you consider any anti-piracy measures to be something that
> GPLv3 should prohibit.
* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > for (;;) {
> > for (i = 0; i < loops; i++) {
> > if (__raw_write_trylock(>raw_lock))
> > return;
> > __delay(1);
> > }
>
Everyone is invited to the NUMA BOF at the Ottawa Linux Symposium
Friday Jun 29th, 2007 19:00 - 20:00 in Rockhopper
The main interest seems to be a discussion on the use of memory policies.
Lee Schermerhorn will talk a bit about his work and then I may say
something about the problems with
Linus Torvalds pisze:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Subject: long freezes on thinkpad t60
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/24/100
Submitter : Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Handled-By : Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Patch :
* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > I can understand why no data is saved by this change: gcc is
> > aligning the next field to a natural boundary anyway and we dont
> > really have arrays of spinlocks (fortunately).
>
> Actually,
On 2007-06-21T22:07:40, Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > AA is supposed to allow valid access patterns, so for non-buggy apps +
> > policies, the rename will be fine and does not change the (observed)
> > permissions.
> That still breaks POSIX, right? Hopefully it will not break any
* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, the cache line arbitration doesn't know anything about "locked" vs
> "unlocked" instructions (it could, but there really is no point).
>
> The real issue is that locked instructions on x86 are serializing,
> which makes them extremely slow
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, Andrew McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A balance of freedom to the licensee and the licenser. It's my
opinion that GPLv3 potentially shifts the balance too far to the
licensee.
It's more of a balance of freedom between licensee and licensee,
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If somebody can actually come up with a sequence where we have
> > spinlock starvation, and it's not about an example of bad locking, and
> > nobody really can come up with any other way to fix it,
* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's in fact entirely possible that the long freezes have always been
> there, but the NOHZ option meant that we had much longer stretches of
> time without things like timer interrupts to jumble up the timing! So
> maybe the freezes existed
On Jun 21, 2007, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:39:07AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> - the kernel Linux could use code from GPLv3 projects
> ... and inherit GPLv3 additional restrictions. No.
Respecting the wishes of the author of that code. Are you
* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (And no, on 32-bit x86, we don't allow more than 128 CPU's. I don't
> think such an insane machine has ever existed).
and if people _really_ want to boot a large-smp 32-bit kernel on some
new, tons-of-cpus box, as a workaround they can enable the
On 6/21/07, Alexey Starikovskiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I think you might be interested in following patch, which implements _ACPI_
driver for the same hardware...
It is only "proof of concept" at the moment, but it does main thing -- reads
hwmon device using ACPI interfaces.
Well,
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> I can understand why no data is saved by this change: gcc is aligning
> the next field to a natural boundary anyway and we dont really have
> arrays of spinlocks (fortunately).
Actually, some data structures could well shrink.
Look at "struct
On 21 Jun 2007, Neil Brown stated:
> I have that - apparently naive - idea that drives use strong checksum,
> and will never return bad data, only good data or an error. If this
> isn't right, then it would really help to understand what the cause of
> other failures are before working out how to
* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If somebody can actually come up with a sequence where we have
> spinlock starvation, and it's not about an example of bad locking, and
> nobody really can come up with any other way to fix it, we may
> eventually have to add the notion of "fair
Hi!
> > I believe AA breaks POSIX, already. rename() is not expected to change
> > permissions on target, nor is link link. And yes, both of these make
> > AA insecure.
>
> AA is supposed to allow valid access patterns, so for non-buggy apps +
> policies, the rename will be fine and does not
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> this is standard dual-licensing, not special just becouse both
> licenses are GPL versions
No, seriously, it's not, it's quite different.
If you dual-license your code between GPLv2 and GPLv3, I could combine
your code with code under GPLv3,
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, Andrew McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how can the server tell if it's been tampered with?
I agree with this statement.
Err... That's a question, not a statement ;-)
Sorry, that's what happens when one types before
* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Umm. i386 spinlocks could and should be *one*byte*.
>
> In fact, I don't even know why they are wasting four bytes right now:
> the fact that somebody made them an "int" just wastes memory. All the
> actual code uses "decb", so it's not even a
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no, one of the rules for the network is that the software must be
certified,
In this case you might have grounds to
On Thursday, June 21, 2007 12:40:58 Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On 6/7/07, Jesse Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On some machines, buggy BIOSes don't properly setup WB MTRRs to
> > cover all available RAM, meaning the last few megs (or even gigs)
> > of memory will be marked uncached. Since Linux
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 09:13:11AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 23:37 -0700, Keshavamurthy, Anil S wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 08:29:34AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 23:11 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > > Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
On Jun 21, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> However, if GPLv3 had a permission to combine/link with code under
>> GPLv2, *and* Linux (and any other projects interested in mutual
>> compatibility) introduced an additional permission to combine/link
>>
On 2007-06-21T15:42:28, James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A veto is not a technical argument. All technical arguments (except for
> > "path name is ugly, yuk yuk!") have been addressed, have they not?
> AppArmor doesn't actually provide confinement, because it only operates on
>
> Fengwei Yin napsal(a):
> > Hi,
> > In function tsdev_event() of drivers/input/tsdev.c,
> > conversion from usec to milisec is like:
> >client->event[client->head].millisecs =
> > time.tv_usec / 100;
> > ~~ should be 1000?
>
> Seems so. James CCed.
Thats my old
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
>> You can't use this code if you cooporate with anyone that requires
>> DRM systems.
> I think their earlier versions did say this.
Show me a GPLv3 draft that did it?
Start here, section 3:
On Jun 21, 2007, Andrew McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A balance of freedom to the licensee and the licenser. It's my
> opinion that GPLv3 potentially shifts the balance too far to the
> licensee.
It's more of a balance of freedom between licensee and licensee,
actually. It's a lot about
I'd like to make a read-only /proc file which supports inotify -- that
is, the kernel can send change notifications to userland via the
inotify mechanism. I've found fsnotify_modify() (in
include/linux/fsnotify.h) which seems to do what I want, but it takes
a struct dentry * -- how can I get a
101 - 200 of 979 matches
Mail list logo
