On 3/13/07, Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 02:05:23PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 March 2007 10:46, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:58:11 +1100
> >
> > >
On 3/13/07, Willy Tarreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 02:05:23PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 10:46, David Miller wrote:
From: Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:58:11 +1100
> >Why was the KERNEL_VERSION(a,b,c) macro removed from
> >include/linux/version.h? The removal breaks external drivers like
> >NDISWRAPPER or nVidia propietary.
> >
> Hello Felipe,
>
> I could not regonize a breakage of NVidia (Version 1.0-7667) propietary
> drivers.
> They work just perfect.
> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.13-rc4/2.6.13-rc4-mm1/
Why was the KERNEL_VERSION(a,b,c) macro removed from
include/linux/version.h? The removal breaks external drivers like
NDISWRAPPER or nVidia propietary.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.13-rc4/2.6.13-rc4-mm1/
Why was the KERNEL_VERSION(a,b,c) macro removed from
include/linux/version.h? The removal breaks external drivers like
NDISWRAPPER or nVidia propietary.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Why was the KERNEL_VERSION(a,b,c) macro removed from
include/linux/version.h? The removal breaks external drivers like
NDISWRAPPER or nVidia propietary.
Hello Felipe,
I could not regonize a breakage of NVidia (Version 1.0-7667) propietary
drivers.
They work just perfect.
Indeed they do
> What's your device-mapper/lvm configuration and what 'lvm' command
> did you run to trigger this?
Nothing special... it happens while booting Fedora Core 4.
> 'dmsetup info -c'
> 'dmsetup table'
> 'lvs --segments -o+devices -a'
# cat /etc/fstab
/dev/VolGroup00/Root/
What's your device-mapper/lvm configuration and what 'lvm' command
did you run to trigger this?
Nothing special... it happens while booting Fedora Core 4.
'dmsetup info -c'
'dmsetup table'
'lvs --segments -o+devices -a'
# cat /etc/fstab
/dev/VolGroup00/Root/
> Changes since 2.6.13-rc2-mm1:
I'm seeing this oops with 2.6.13-rc2-mm2:
*pde
Oops: [#1]
last sysfs file:
Modules linked in: dm_snapshot dm_mirror ext3 mbcache jbd dm_mod
CPU:0
EIP:0060:[]Not tainted VLI
EFLAGS: 00010246 (2.6.13-rc2mm2)
EIP is at
Changes since 2.6.13-rc2-mm1:
I'm seeing this oops with 2.6.13-rc2-mm2:
*pde
Oops: [#1]
last sysfs file:
Modules linked in: dm_snapshot dm_mirror ext3 mbcache jbd dm_mod
CPU:0
EIP:0060:[e081e681]Not tainted VLI
EFLAGS: 00010246 (2.6.13-rc2mm2)
EIP is at
On 4/15/05, Linda Luu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Does anyone happen to know how the upcoming multi-core CPU will be handled
> by the kernel? Does it see each core as a physical or logical CPU or ?
Can't answer this, but I guess each core will be seen as a physical
CPU as they are
On 4/15/05, Linda Luu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Does anyone happen to know how the upcoming multi-core CPU will be handled
by the kernel? Does it see each core as a physical or logical CPU or ?
Can't answer this, but I guess each core will be seen as a physical
CPU as they are real
On Apr 4, 2005 9:51 PM, Wiktor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm using the following method and it seems to be working fine
> (involving crypto-loop):
>
> i have normal ext3 /boot partition, where i store kernel image & initrd.
> after lilo boots the kernel, initrd sets up /dev/loop0 to
On Apr 4, 2005 9:51 PM, Wiktor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'm using the following method and it seems to be working fine
(involving crypto-loop):
i have normal ext3 /boot partition, where i store kernel image initrd.
after lilo boots the kernel, initrd sets up /dev/loop0 to be
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:28:20 +0200, Matthieu Castet
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The memory limits aren't good enough either: if you set them low
> > enough that memory-forkbombs are unperilous for
> > RLIMIT_NPROC*RLIMIT_DATA, it's probably too low for serious
> > applications.
>
> yes, if you
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:28:20 +0200, Matthieu Castet
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The memory limits aren't good enough either: if you set them low
enough that memory-forkbombs are unperilous for
RLIMIT_NPROC*RLIMIT_DATA, it's probably too low for serious
applications.
yes, if you want to run
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:32:39 -0500, John Richard Moser
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CPL=3 scares me; context switches are expensive. can they have direct
> hardware access? I'm sure a security model to isolate user mode drivers
> could be in place. . .
>
> . . . huh. Xen seems to run Linux at
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:32:39 -0500, John Richard Moser
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CPL=3 scares me; context switches are expensive. can they have direct
hardware access? I'm sure a security model to isolate user mode drivers
could be in place. . .
. . . huh. Xen seems to run Linux at CPL=3
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 17:02:43 +1100, Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes it is. I have a hack in there that automatically renices any
> binary starting with 'XF' to -10 for people who forget. So this
> includes XFree86, though maybe it doesn't get the x.org server?
X.org's X server binary
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 17:02:43 +1100, Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes it is. I have a hack in there that automatically renices any
binary starting with 'XF' to -10 for people who forget. So this
includes XFree86, though maybe it doesn't get the x.org server?
X.org's X server binary is
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:25:39 -0800, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Could someone try this?
>
> Let's turn that into a real patch.
>
> --- 25/drivers/ide/ide-probe.c~ide_init_disk-fixWed Feb 23 16:24:44
> 2005
> +++
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:25:39 -0800, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could someone try this?
Let's turn that into a real patch.
--- 25/drivers/ide/ide-probe.c~ide_init_disk-fixWed Feb 23 16:24:44
2005
+++
On 31 Jan 2005, at 02:51, Clemens Schwaighofer wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I have a RedHat 9.0 box with a self compiled 2.6.7 kernel.
Today I had this error and a total lockup on the box. Before that (~6h
before I had another lockup, but no output to anywhere).
Have
On 27 Jan 2005, at 19:04, John Richard Moser wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
What the hell?
So instead of bringing something in that works, you bring something in
that does significantly less, and gives no savings on overhead or patch
complexity why? So you can later come out
On 27 Jan 2005, at 19:04, John Richard Moser wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
What the hell?
So instead of bringing something in that works, you bring something in
that does significantly less, and gives no savings on overhead or patch
complexity why? So you can later come out
On 26 Jan 2005, at 07:23, Robert W. Fuller wrote:
Has anybody ported Linux to a virtual machine?
http://xen.sf.net
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
On 26 Jan 2005, at 07:23, Robert W. Fuller wrote:
Has anybody ported Linux to a virtual machine?
http://xen.sf.net
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
On 23 Jan 2005, at 03:39, Andi Kleen wrote:
Felipe Alfaro Solana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AFAIK, XOR is quite expensive on IA32 when compared to simple MOV
operatings. Also, since the original patch uses 3 MOVs to perform the
swapping, and your version uses 3 XOR operations, I don't s
On 22 Jan 2005, at 18:33, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
Hi!
I'm suing Arch Linux and the Kernel 2.6.11-rc2 -- it works great. Try
to recompile your
^
suing? My God! More legal trouble.
Didn't you mean "using"? ;-)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On 22 Jan 2005, at 22:00, vlobanov wrote:
Hi,
I was just reading over the patch, and had a quick question/comment
upon
the SWAP macro defined below. I think it's possible to do a tiny bit
better (better, of course, being subjective), as follows:
#define SWAP(a, b, size)\
On 22 Jan 2005, at 22:00, vlobanov wrote:
Hi,
I was just reading over the patch, and had a quick question/comment
upon
the SWAP macro defined below. I think it's possible to do a tiny bit
better (better, of course, being subjective), as follows:
#define SWAP(a, b, size)\
On 22 Jan 2005, at 18:33, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
Hi!
I'm suing Arch Linux and the Kernel 2.6.11-rc2 -- it works great. Try
to recompile your
^
suing? My God! More legal trouble.
Didn't you mean using? ;-)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel
On 23 Jan 2005, at 03:39, Andi Kleen wrote:
Felipe Alfaro Solana [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
AFAIK, XOR is quite expensive on IA32 when compared to simple MOV
operatings. Also, since the original patch uses 3 MOVs to perform the
swapping, and your version uses 3 XOR operations, I don't see any
gains
33 matches
Mail list logo
