I don't see anything obviously wrong here...
Reviewed-By: Daniel Hazelton
On 12/20/2012 02:11 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin
---
tools/testing/selftests/epoll/test_epoll.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests
I don't see anything obviously wrong here...
Reviewed-By: Daniel Hazelton dshadoww...@gmail.com
On 12/20/2012 02:11 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com
---
tools/testing/selftests/epoll/test_epoll.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions
-page-flags.h: No such file or directory
Reported-by: Daniel Hazelton
Signed-off-by: David Howells
cc: Fengguang Wu
---
tools/vm/page-types.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/vm/page-types.c b/tools/vm/page-types.c
index cd1b03e..b76edf2 100644
-page-flags.h: No such file or directory
Reported-by: Daniel Hazelton dshadoww...@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com
cc: Fengguang Wu fengguang...@intel.com
---
tools/vm/page-types.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/vm/page
After doing any build in the kernel (last attempt was an allmodconfig)
I've tried to build the 'vm' tool in tools/vm and the build fails -
looks to be fallout from the uapi header work.
[madman@localhost tools]$ make V=1 vm
make -C vm/
make[1]: Entering directory
After doing any build in the kernel (last attempt was an allmodconfig)
I've tried to build the 'vm' tool in tools/vm and the build fails -
looks to be fallout from the uapi header work.
[madman@localhost tools]$ make V=1 vm
make -C vm/
make[1]: Entering directory
On 07/06/2012 11:32 AM, Kyungmin Park wrote:
> Acked-by: Kyungmin Park
>
> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Andy Shevchenko
> wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko
>> Cc: Kyungmin Park
>> ---
>> drivers/staging/ccg/ccg.c |8 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
On 07/06/2012 11:32 AM, Kyungmin Park wrote:
Acked-by: Kyungmin Park kyungmin.p...@samsung.com
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Andy Shevchenko
andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com wrote:
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com
Cc: Kyungmin Park
On Tuesday 26 February 2008 06:10:34 Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Jan Kara wrote:
> > Yes, exactly two of them. One is non-trivial to get rid of - it's
> > used for encoding of filename before we write it,
>
> Why can't we do just
>
>
>
> UDF: Optimize stack usage
>
>
On Tuesday 26 February 2008 06:10:34 Jiri Kosina wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Jan Kara wrote:
Yes, exactly two of them. One is non-trivial to get rid of - it's
used for encoding of filename before we write it,
Why can't we do just
UDF: Optimize stack usage
Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina
On Sunday 10 February 2008 06:20:45 Alan Cox wrote:
> > Why? Because the pre-processor is what is including any GPL'd code in my
> > application and expanding any macros. That is a purely mechanical process
> > and
>
> And its not pirating Windows because Norton Ghost put Microsoft copyright
>
On Sunday 10 February 2008 06:20:45 Alan Cox wrote:
Why? Because the pre-processor is what is including any GPL'd code in my
application and expanding any macros. That is a purely mechanical process
and
And its not pirating Windows because Norton Ghost put Microsoft copyright
material in
On Sunday 10 February 2008 00:43:49 Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> > > > > It makes no difference if you
> > > > > distribute the GPL library with it or not.
> > > >
> > > > If you do not distribute the GPL library, the library is simply being
> > > > used in the intended, ordinary way.
On Saturday 09 February 2008 23:50:17 Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> > > It makes no difference if you
> > > distribute the GPL library with it or not.
> >
> > If you do not distribute the GPL library, the library is simply being
> > used in the intended, ordinary way. You do not need to agree to, nor
On Sunday 10 February 2008 00:43:49 Marcel Holtmann wrote:
Hi Daniel,
It makes no difference if you
distribute the GPL library with it or not.
If you do not distribute the GPL library, the library is simply being
used in the intended, ordinary way. You do not need to agree
On Friday 08 February 2008 16:36:37 Alan Cox wrote:
> > In other words "EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL" isn't his idea of "a good legal idea",
> > but people ignoring this and doing things that circumvent this will,
> > eventually, have problems with the people who hold the copyright on the
> > code. (In
On Friday 08 February 2008 14:08:21 David Newall wrote:
> I explained something poorly:
> > Now, Alan has made a big issue over numerous legal opinions he has
> > received, but he's been completely coy in the details.
>
> The point I wanted to make is that a few people have said that lawyers
> say
On Friday 08 February 2008 16:36:37 Alan Cox wrote:
In other words EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL isn't his idea of a good legal idea,
but people ignoring this and doing things that circumvent this will,
eventually, have problems with the people who hold the copyright on the
code. (In addition, he
On Sunday 03 February 2008 12:36:33 Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Saturday 02 February 2008 18:40:55 Chris Rankin wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I have tried to boot a 2.6.24 kernel on my 1 GHz Coppermine / 512 MB RAM
> >> PC. (This i
On Sunday 03 February 2008 12:36:33 Jeff Garzik wrote:
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Saturday 02 February 2008 18:40:55 Chris Rankin wrote:
Hi,
I have tried to boot a 2.6.24 kernel on my 1 GHz Coppermine / 512 MB RAM
PC. (This is without the nmi_watchdog=1 option.) However, the ATA layer
On Sunday 03 February 2008 00:03:10 Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 07:52:37PM -0500, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Saturday 02 February 2008 19:22:49 Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 04:44:57PM +0200, Heikki Orsila wrote:
> >
> >
> >
&
On Saturday 02 February 2008 19:22:49 Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 04:44:57PM +0200, Heikki Orsila wrote:
> > @@ -145,6 +145,10 @@ as small as possible, and that all potential
> > interfaces are tested as well as they can be (unused interfaces are
> > pretty much impossible to test
On Saturday 02 February 2008 18:40:55 Chris Rankin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have tried to boot a 2.6.24 kernel on my 1 GHz Coppermine / 512 MB RAM
> PC. (This is without the nmi_watchdog=1 option.) However, the ATA layer is
> failing to initialise:
>
> Driver 'sd' needs updating - please use bus_type
On Saturday 02 February 2008 18:40:55 Chris Rankin wrote:
Hi,
I have tried to boot a 2.6.24 kernel on my 1 GHz Coppermine / 512 MB RAM
PC. (This is without the nmi_watchdog=1 option.) However, the ATA layer is
failing to initialise:
snip
Driver 'sd' needs updating - please use bus_type
On Saturday 02 February 2008 19:22:49 Greg KH wrote:
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 04:44:57PM +0200, Heikki Orsila wrote:
snip
@@ -145,6 +145,10 @@ as small as possible, and that all potential
interfaces are tested as well as they can be (unused interfaces are
pretty much impossible to test for
On Sunday 03 February 2008 00:03:10 Greg KH wrote:
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 07:52:37PM -0500, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Saturday 02 February 2008 19:22:49 Greg KH wrote:
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 04:44:57PM +0200, Heikki Orsila wrote:
snip
@@ -145,6 +145,10 @@ as small as possible
On Friday 01 February 2008 23:42:47 Gabriel C wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > Another problem is one I wasn't able to find any kind of trigger for,
> > other than just running XChat. Every so often XChat would seem to freeze
> > - but if run from the command line, switc
In a recent (haven't tested the latest git, but I have tested one pulled down
1/29 - I think it's 24e1c13) I see the following errors when the AES crypto
module is loaded:
[ 27.786935] aes_x86_64: Unknown symbol crypto_it_tab
[ 27.786984] aes_x86_64: Unknown symbol crypto_aes_set_key
[
On Friday 01 February 2008 23:42:47 Gabriel C wrote:
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
Another problem is one I wasn't able to find any kind of trigger for,
other than just running XChat. Every so often XChat would seem to freeze
- but if run from the command line, switching to that terminal window
On Tuesday 29 January 2008 19:46:06 Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:25:22PM +, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 04:22:45PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> >> >> Hello!
>
On Tuesday 29 January 2008 19:46:06 Måns Rullgård wrote:
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:25:22PM +, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 04:22:45PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
Hello!
It have come to
On Tuesday 22 January 2008 17:15:42 John W. Linville wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 09:54:11PM +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> > If I put some heavy load on the iwl3945, then the network connection
> > gets stuck after a some time. To fix it I have to reload the module.
>
> Can you quantify this a
On Tuesday 22 January 2008 17:15:42 John W. Linville wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 09:54:11PM +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote:
If I put some heavy load on the iwl3945, then the network connection
gets stuck after a some time. To fix it I have to reload the module.
Can you quantify this a bit
On Tuesday 15 January 2008 05:08:45 Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:03:22 -0500,
>
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Monday 14 January 2008 06:04:20 Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > Could this have anything to do with the following mess
On Tuesday 15 January 2008 05:08:45 Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:03:22 -0500,
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Monday 14 January 2008 06:04:20 Takashi Iwai wrote:
snip
Could this have anything to do with the following messages I've seen
when trying -rc7
On Saturday 12 January 2008 04:41:21 Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > At Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:02:53 +0100,
> >
> > Harald Dunkel wrote:
> >> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >>> Hm... Just to be sure, try the patch below. It's a clean up patch
> >>> that I'd like to apply later.
> >>
> >>
On Saturday 12 January 2008 04:41:21 Harald Dunkel wrote:
Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:02:53 +0100,
Harald Dunkel wrote:
Takashi Iwai wrote:
Hm... Just to be sure, try the patch below. It's a clean up patch
that I'd like to apply later.
Sorry, no sound.
OK, but
On Tuesday 23 October 2007 17:27:07 Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 15:41 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Tuesday 23 October 2007 14:54:54 Dan Williams wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 13:07 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 23 Octo
On Tuesday 23 October 2007 14:54:54 Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 13:07 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Tuesday 23 October 2007 10:05:12 Dan Williams wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 00:00 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > Hi!
> > &
On Tuesday 23 October 2007 10:05:12 Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 00:00 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > > > Yes, I'm quite sure. There's MODULE_LICENCE("GPL"), IIRC.
> > > >
> > > > That doesn't say much, some manufacturers add that line to their
> > > > driver just to
On Tuesday 23 October 2007 10:05:12 Dan Williams wrote:
On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 00:00 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Yes, I'm quite sure. There's MODULE_LICENCE(GPL), IIRC.
That doesn't say much, some manufacturers add that line to their
driver just to prevent the module loader
On Tuesday 23 October 2007 14:54:54 Dan Williams wrote:
On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 13:07 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Tuesday 23 October 2007 10:05:12 Dan Williams wrote:
On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 00:00 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Yes, I'm quite sure. There's MODULE_LICENCE(GPL
On Tuesday 23 October 2007 17:27:07 Dan Williams wrote:
On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 15:41 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Tuesday 23 October 2007 14:54:54 Dan Williams wrote:
On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 13:07 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Tuesday 23 October 2007 10:05:12 Dan Williams wrote
On Monday 22 October 2007 17:52:57 Ivo van Doorn wrote:
> On Monday 22 October 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > > > This device is NOT a Ralink USB wifi adapter!
> > > > >
> > > > > Get the windows driver in this link and see for yourself.
> > > > >
On Monday 22 October 2007 17:52:57 Ivo van Doorn wrote:
On Monday 22 October 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
This device is NOT a Ralink USB wifi adapter!
Get the windows driver in this link and see for yourself.
http://www.conitech.it/conitech/ita/risorse.asp?cod=CN402USB
On Monday 17 September 2007 02:43:50 Can E. Acar wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Sunday 16 September 2007 23:00:09 Can E. Acar wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Theo summarized the latest situation here, some days ago:
> >>
> >> http://marc.info/?l=open
On Monday 17 September 2007 02:43:50 Can E. Acar wrote:
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Sunday 16 September 2007 23:00:09 Can E. Acar wrote:
[snip]
Theo summarized the latest situation here, some days ago:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=118963284332223w=2
and here is a very brief
On Sunday 16 September 2007 23:00:09 Can E. Acar wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Sunday 16 September 2007 14:48:47 Can E. Acar wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
> >> developers, and S
On Sunday 16 September 2007 16:39:26 Hannah Schroeter wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
> >>...
> >> First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
> >> developers,
On Sunday 16 September 2007 14:48:47 Can E. Acar wrote:
> On Sunday 16 September 2007 15:23:25 Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Sunday 16 September 2007 05:17:53 J.C. Roberts wrote:
> >> On Sunday 16 September 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >> > J.C. Roberts wrote:
>
On Sunday 16 September 2007 05:17:53 J.C. Roberts wrote:
> On Sunday 16 September 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > J.C. Roberts wrote:
> > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless=118857712529898=2
> >
> > Link with outdated info.
> >
> > > http://madwifi.org/browser/branches/ath5k
> >
> > Link with
On Sunday 16 September 2007 05:17:53 J.C. Roberts wrote:
On Sunday 16 September 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
J.C. Roberts wrote:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-wirelessm=118857712529898w=2
Link with outdated info.
http://madwifi.org/browser/branches/ath5k
Link with outdated info.
I
On Sunday 16 September 2007 14:48:47 Can E. Acar wrote:
On Sunday 16 September 2007 15:23:25 Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Sunday 16 September 2007 05:17:53 J.C. Roberts wrote:
On Sunday 16 September 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
J.C. Roberts wrote:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-wirelessm
On Sunday 16 September 2007 16:39:26 Hannah Schroeter wrote:
Hi!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
...
First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
developers, and SLFC
On Sunday 16 September 2007 23:00:09 Can E. Acar wrote:
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Sunday 16 September 2007 14:48:47 Can E. Acar wrote:
[snip]
First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 15:44:31 Michael Poole wrote:
> Chris Friesen writes:
> > Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 04 September 2007 09:27:02 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> >>>Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>>US Copyright
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 11:10:52 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:23:37 PDT, David Schwartz said:
> > > Wrong - I said "You can't complain about Person A doing X when
> > > you let Person
> > > B do X without complaint".
> >
> > Yes, I can. There is no inconsistency between
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 09:27:02 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she
> > may have released the work under, can still revoke the license for a
> > specifi
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 04:50:34 James Bruce wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Monday 03 September 2007 14:26:29 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> >> Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>> The fact
> >>> remains that the
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 04:50:34 James Bruce wrote:
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Monday 03 September 2007 14:26:29 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The fact
remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* form of
copyright
license has
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 09:27:02 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she
may have released the work under, can still revoke the license for a
specific person or group of people
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 11:10:52 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:23:37 PDT, David Schwartz said:
Wrong - I said You can't complain about Person A doing X when
you let Person
B do X without complaint.
Yes, I can. There is no inconsistency between acting in one
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 15:44:31 Michael Poole wrote:
Chris Friesen writes:
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 09:27:02 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she
may have
On Monday 03 September 2007 20:23:37 David Schwartz wrote:
> > Wrong - I said "You can't complain about Person A doing X when
> > you let Person
> > B do X without complaint".
>
> Yes, I can. There is no inconsistency between acting in one case and
> failing to act in another. We need not act in
On Monday 03 September 2007 15:33:01 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I hate to belabor the point, but you seem to be making the mistake of
> > "The license applies to the copyright holder"
>
> Of course not.
I'll take
On Monday 03 September 2007 14:26:29 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The fact
> > remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* form of
> > copyright
> > license has the right to revoke said grant of
On Monday 03 September 2007 13:18:35 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Then go yell at Mr. Floeter. The code is dual-licensed and he put
> > BSD-License
> > only code in it. Because that's the *EXACT* *SAME* thing you're talk
On Monday 03 September 2007 05:48:00 David Schwartz wrote:
> > Mr. Floeter *CAN* request that his code be removed from said fork
> > - his code
> > is solely licensed (AFAICT and IIRC) under the BSD/ISC license
> > and was only
> > covered by the dual-license because it was integrated into a work
(As noted before - I am surround all-caps text with *'s to indicate vocal
stress, not volume)
On Monday 03 September 2007 05:47:59 David Schwartz wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > > Your entire argument is based on the false assumption that
> > > these licenses
(As noted before - I am surround all-caps text with *'s to indicate vocal
stress, not volume)
On Monday 03 September 2007 05:47:59 David Schwartz wrote:
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
Your entire argument is based on the false assumption that
these licenses
are compatible. They are not. You
On Monday 03 September 2007 05:48:00 David Schwartz wrote:
Mr. Floeter *CAN* request that his code be removed from said fork
- his code
is solely licensed (AFAICT and IIRC) under the BSD/ISC license
and was only
covered by the dual-license because it was integrated into a work that
On Monday 03 September 2007 13:18:35 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then go yell at Mr. Floeter. The code is dual-licensed and he put
BSD-License
only code in it. Because that's the *EXACT* *SAME* thing you're talking
about.
Actually it is not.
Dual
On Monday 03 September 2007 14:26:29 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The fact
remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* form of
copyright
license has the right to revoke said grant of license to anyone.
Not after the licence has been
On Monday 03 September 2007 15:33:01 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I hate to belabor the point, but you seem to be making the mistake of
The license applies to the copyright holder
Of course not.
I'll take this at face value - I might have mis-parsed
On Monday 03 September 2007 20:23:37 David Schwartz wrote:
Wrong - I said You can't complain about Person A doing X when
you let Person
B do X without complaint.
Yes, I can. There is no inconsistency between acting in one case and
failing to act in another. We need not act in every
(by the way, text in caps surrounded by *'s is meant to indicate vocal stress,
not volume)
On Sunday 02 September 2007 22:01:18 David Schwartz wrote:
> > So I appear to have a
> > right to convey the work under the GPL to a third party, who from me
> > receives no right to use it except under
On Sunday 02 September 2007 22:01:17 David Schwartz wrote:
> > Letting aside the legality of that change, why would such a change
> > be needed ? The licensing is perfectly clear: the file is available
> > under the ISC licence, OR the GPL licence. This doesn't cause any
> > problem for the linux
On Sunday 02 September 2007 22:01:17 David Schwartz wrote:
Letting aside the legality of that change, why would such a change
be needed ? The licensing is perfectly clear: the file is available
under the ISC licence, OR the GPL licence. This doesn't cause any
problem for the linux kernel.
On Monday 30 July 2007 14:35:13 Bernhard Kaindl wrote:
> Ok, lets kill the message. As Alois Nešpor also saw, that's fixed up by
> Yenta, so PCI does not have to warn about it. PCI could still warn about it
> if is_cardbus is 0 in that instance of pci_scan_bridge(), but so far I have
> not seen a
On Monday 30 July 2007 14:35:13 Bernhard Kaindl wrote:
snip
Ok, lets kill the message. As Alois Nešpor also saw, that's fixed up by
Yenta, so PCI does not have to warn about it. PCI could still warn about it
if is_cardbus is 0 in that instance of pci_scan_bridge(), but so far I have
not seen a
On Sunday 29 July 2007 16:00:22 Ray Lee wrote:
> On 7/29/07, Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If the problem is reading stuff back in from swap at the *same time*
> > that the application is reading stuff from some user file system, and if
> > that user file system is on the same drive
On Sunday 29 July 2007 16:00:22 Ray Lee wrote:
On 7/29/07, Paul Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the problem is reading stuff back in from swap at the *same time*
that the application is reading stuff from some user file system, and if
that user file system is on the same drive as the
On Saturday 28 July 2007 17:06:50 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Saturday 28 July 2007 04:55:58 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Rene Herman wrote:
> >>> On 07/27/2007 09:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrot
On Saturday 28 July 2007 04:55:58 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Rene Herman wrote:
> > On 07/27/2007 09:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, Rene Herman wrote:
> >> > On 07/27/2007 07:45 PM, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> >>
On Saturday 28 July 2007 03:48:13 Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 18:51 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > Now, once more, I'm going to ask: What is so terribly wrong with swap
> > prefetch? Why does it seem that everyone against it says "Its treating a
> &g
On Saturday 28 July 2007 03:48:13 Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 18:51 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
Now, once more, I'm going to ask: What is so terribly wrong with swap
prefetch? Why does it seem that everyone against it says Its treating a
symptom, so it can't go
On Saturday 28 July 2007 04:55:58 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Rene Herman wrote:
On 07/27/2007 09:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, Rene Herman wrote:
On 07/27/2007 07:45 PM, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
Questions about it:
Q) Does swap-prefetch
On Saturday 28 July 2007 17:06:50 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Saturday 28 July 2007 04:55:58 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Rene Herman wrote:
On 07/27/2007 09:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, Rene Herman
On Friday 27 July 2007 19:29:19 Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Any faults in that reasoning?
>
> GNU sort uses a merge sort with temporary files on disk. Not sure
> how much it keeps in memory during that, but it's probably less
> than 150MB. At some point the dirty limit should kick in and write back the
On Friday 27 July 2007 18:08:44 Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 13:45 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Friday 27 July 2007 06:25:18 Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 03:00 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > So hrm. Are we sur
On Friday 27 July 2007 14:16:32 Rene Herman wrote:
> On 07/27/2007 07:45 PM, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > Updatedb or another process that uses the FS heavily runs on a users
> > 256MB P3-800 (when it is idle) and the VFS caches grow, causing memory
> > pressure that caus
On Friday 27 July 2007 06:25:18 Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 03:00 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 01:47:49 -0700 Andrew Morton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > More sophisticated testing is needed - there's something in
> > > ext3-tools which will mmap, page
On Friday 27 July 2007 06:25:18 Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 03:00 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 01:47:49 -0700 Andrew Morton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More sophisticated testing is needed - there's something in
ext3-tools which will mmap, page in and hold
On Friday 27 July 2007 14:16:32 Rene Herman wrote:
On 07/27/2007 07:45 PM, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
Updatedb or another process that uses the FS heavily runs on a users
256MB P3-800 (when it is idle) and the VFS caches grow, causing memory
pressure that causes other applications to be swapped
On Friday 27 July 2007 18:08:44 Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 13:45 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Friday 27 July 2007 06:25:18 Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 03:00 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
So hrm. Are we sure that updatedb is the problem
On Friday 27 July 2007 19:29:19 Andi Kleen wrote:
Any faults in that reasoning?
GNU sort uses a merge sort with temporary files on disk. Not sure
how much it keeps in memory during that, but it's probably less
than 150MB. At some point the dirty limit should kick in and write back the
data
On Sunday 22 July 2007 18:03:06 Bartek wrote:
> 2007/7/22, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > 00:1f.1 0101: 8086:27df (rev 02)
> > >
> > > Ok, this controller is supported.
> > > Did you forgot about CONFIG_PATA_MPIIX=y?
> >
> > MPIIX is for early Intel laptop (pentium era).
> >
> > If the chip
On Sunday 22 July 2007 18:03:06 Bartek wrote:
2007/7/22, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
00:1f.1 0101: 8086:27df (rev 02)
Ok, this controller is supported.
Did you forgot about CONFIG_PATA_MPIIX=y?
MPIIX is for early Intel laptop (pentium era).
If the chip is in AHCI mode then
On Saturday 30 June 2007 08:02:16 Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Jörg,
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 12:39:57PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 12:27 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
On Saturday 30 June 2007 08:02:16 Joerg Schilling wrote:
Willy Tarreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jörg,
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 12:39:57PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 12:27 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
David
1 - 100 of 400 matches
Mail list logo
