On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Kelledin Tane wrote:
> At this point, I'm trying to get an initrd working properly. So far, it
> works, the system boots, etc. etc., but whenever I try to do a "blockdev
> --flushbufs /dev/ram0", I get "device or resource busy"
>
> When I mount the filesystem to check it
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Kelledin Tane wrote:
At this point, I'm trying to get an initrd working properly. So far, it
works, the system boots, etc. etc., but whenever I try to do a "blockdev
--flushbufs /dev/ram0", I get "device or resource busy"
When I mount the filesystem to check it out,
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 11:42:49AM +0100, Jan Rekorajski wrote:
>
> Could you please make a patch with this fix only? Or is it
> available somewhere?
>
[cut incomplete patch ;)]
There are more changes, I hacked'em out of
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 11:42:49AM +0100, Jan Rekorajski wrote:
Could you please make a patch with this fix only? Or is it
available somewhere?
[cut incomplete patch ;)]
There are more changes, I hacked'em out of vger CVS:
diff -urN
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
>
> Usual spot:
>
> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/davem/zerocopy-2.4.2-2.diff.gz
>
> Changes since last installment:
>
> 3) Workaround for win2000/95 VJ header compression bugs is
>implemented.
Could you please make a patch with
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
Usual spot:
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/davem/zerocopy-2.4.2-2.diff.gz
Changes since last installment:
3) Workaround for win2000/95 VJ header compression bugs is
implemented.
Could you please make a patch with this fix
Hi,
2.4.0 introduced serious breakage to LANE. It's impossible to do
ifdown lec? ; ifup lec? because memory allocated by lec? is freed but
unregister_netdev() is not called, so SIOCGIFFLAGS tells me ok, but
SIOCSIFFLAGS tells me -ENODEV. No, rmmod lec ; insmod lec does not help.
Patch follows
Hi,
2.4.0 introduced serious breakage to LANE. It's impossible to do
ifdown lec? ; ifup lec? because memory allocated by lec? is freed but
unregister_netdev() is not called, so SIOCGIFFLAGS tells me ok, but
SIOCSIFFLAGS tells me -ENODEV. No, rmmod lec ; insmod lec does not help.
Patch follows
...is still broken. It does not build Fore 200e driver.
Jan
--- linux/drivers/atm/Makefile.orig Tue Jan 2 10:18:25 2001
+++ linux/drivers/atm/Makefile Tue Jan 2 12:00:05 2001
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@
endif
endif
-obj-$(CONFIG_ATM_FORE200E) += fore200e.o $(FORE200E_FW_OBJS)
...is still broken. It does not build Fore 200e driver.
Jan
--- linux/drivers/atm/Makefile.orig Tue Jan 2 10:18:25 2001
+++ linux/drivers/atm/Makefile Tue Jan 2 12:00:05 2001
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@
endif
endif
-obj-$(CONFIG_ATM_FORE200E) += fore200e.o $(FORE200E_FW_OBJS)
Hi,
The Fore dirver in 2.4.0-prerelease just does not build
with the current makefile. This patch fixes it (works for me):
--- linux/drivers/atm/Makefile.orig Tue Jan 2 10:18:25 2001
+++ linux/drivers/atm/Makefile Tue Jan 2 12:00:05 2001
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@
endif
endif
Hi,
The Fore dirver in 2.4.0-prerelease just does not build
with the current makefile. This patch fixes it (works for me):
--- linux/drivers/atm/Makefile.orig Tue Jan 2 10:18:25 2001
+++ linux/drivers/atm/Makefile Tue Jan 2 12:00:05 2001
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@
endif
endif
Hi,
Due to latest Makefile changes ATM LANE won't build as module.
The following patch fixes it.
--- linux/net/atm/Makefile.orig Sun Dec 31 17:57:15 2000
+++ linux/net/atm/Makefile Sun Dec 31 19:04:49 2000
@@ -33,7 +33,13 @@
obj-y += proc.o
endif
-obj-$(CONFIG_ATM_LANE) += lec.o
Hi,
Due to latest Makefile changes ATM LANE won't build as module.
The following patch fixes it.
--- linux/net/atm/Makefile.orig Sun Dec 31 17:57:15 2000
+++ linux/net/atm/Makefile Sun Dec 31 19:04:49 2000
@@ -33,7 +33,13 @@
obj-y += proc.o
endif
-obj-$(CONFIG_ATM_LANE) += lec.o
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, Maciej Bogucki wrote:
> HI!
> I have 2.4.0-test9 and 2.2.16 kernel compiled on my computer .I have
> httpd server on this computer . With 2.2.16 apache work good ( via DSL
> and modem ), but with 2.4 ( the same computer ) , when I wont to connect
> to my page via modem
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, Maciej Bogucki wrote:
HI!
I have 2.4.0-test9 and 2.2.16 kernel compiled on my computer .I have
httpd server on this computer . With 2.2.16 apache work good ( via DSL
and modem ), but with 2.4 ( the same computer ) , when I wont to connect
to my page via modem first few
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Jan Rekorajski wrote:
> > > > --- linux/kernel/fork.c~Tue Sep 5 23:48:59 2000
> > > > +++ linux/kernel/fork.c Sun Nov 26 20:22:20 2000
> > > >
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Jan Rekorajski wrote:
--- linux/kernel/fork.c~Tue Sep 5 23:48:59 2000
+++ linux/kernel/fork.c Sun Nov 26 20:22:20 2000
@@ -560,7 +560,8 @@
*p = *current;
retval = -EAGAIN
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Why is RLIMIT_NPROC apllied to root(uid 0) processes? It's not kernel j=
> > ob to
> > prevent admin from shooting him/her self in the foot.
> >
> > root should be able to do fork() regardless of any limits,
> > and IMHO the following patch is the right
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Jan Rekorajski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> |> Why is RLIMIT_NPROC apllied to root(uid 0) processes? It's not kernel job to
> |> prevent admin from shooting him/her self in the foot.
> |>
> |> root should be
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Jan Rekorajski wrote:
> > --- linux/kernel/fork.c~Tue Sep 5 23:48:59 2000
> > +++ linux/kernel/fork.c Sun Nov 26 20:22:20 2000
> > @@ -560,7 +560,8 @@
> > *p = *current;
>
Why is RLIMIT_NPROC apllied to root(uid 0) processes? It's not kernel job to
prevent admin from shooting him/her self in the foot.
root should be able to do fork() regardless of any limits,
and IMHO the following patch is the right thing.
--- linux/kernel/fork.c~Tue Sep 5 23:48:59
Why is RLIMIT_NPROC apllied to root(uid 0) processes? It's not kernel job to
prevent admin from shooting him/her self in the foot.
root should be able to do fork() regardless of any limits,
and IMHO the following patch is the right thing.
--- linux/kernel/fork.c~Tue Sep 5 23:48:59
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Jan Rekorajski wrote:
--- linux/kernel/fork.c~Tue Sep 5 23:48:59 2000
+++ linux/kernel/fork.c Sun Nov 26 20:22:20 2000
@@ -560,7 +560,8 @@
*p = *current;
retval = -EAGAIN;
- if (atomic_read(p
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Jan Rekorajski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Why is RLIMIT_NPROC apllied to root(uid 0) processes? It's not kernel job to
| prevent admin from shooting him/her self in the foot.
|
| root should be able to do fork() regardless of any limits
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
Why is RLIMIT_NPROC apllied to root(uid 0) processes? It's not kernel j=
ob to
prevent admin from shooting him/her self in the foot.
root should be able to do fork() regardless of any limits,
and IMHO the following patch is the right thing.
On Wed, 22 Nov 2000, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
>
> Is probably broken (I didnt't saw any disscusion about this here,
> I missed it?).
>
> when I try to start first user process I get:
> 4366 fork()= -1 EAGAIN (Resource temporarily
>unavailable)
> but strace show
On Wed, 22 Nov 2000, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
Is probably broken (I didnt't saw any disscusion about this here,
I missed it?).
when I try to start first user process I get:
4366 fork()= -1 EAGAIN (Resource temporarily
unavailable)
but strace show proper
28 matches
Mail list logo
