On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 03:49:31PM -0800, Junfeng Yang wrote:
Sometimes the line number reported by the checker is not correct.
But if you go into the function, you can find the bug.
Gotcha. It in fact indicate the error at the end of the
function instead of the place where the error
Hi,
I've found a really convoluted bug in the IrDA stack (spend
the week chasing it). As it is not trivial, I would like you to check
and comment on my description and my fix.
My patch definitely fix the problem on the PC where I was
seeing it, and I can't crash it
Hi,
I've found a really convoluted bug in the IrDA stack (spend
the week chasing it). As it is not trivial, I would like you to check
and comment on my description and my fix.
My patch definitely fix the problem on the PC where I was
seeing it, and I can't crash it
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 01:58:11PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 08:32:28PM +, Dag Brattli wrote:
> > > I'd recommend that this file be in the /drivers/usb directory, much like
> > > almost all other USB drivers are.
> >
> > Yes, but do we want to spread the IrDA code
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 01:58:11PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 08:32:28PM +, Dag Brattli wrote:
I'd recommend that this file be in the /drivers/usb directory, much like
almost all other USB drivers are.
Yes, but do we want to spread the IrDA code around? The same
Hi Alan (and the others)
A few notes related to you *-ac* patches, the IrDA stack and
the Wavelan driver.
First, IrDA :
> --- linux.vanilla/net/irda/irlap.cThu Feb 22 09:06:21 2001
> +++ linux.ac/net/irda/irlap.c Wed Feb 21 11:55:26 2001
> @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@
> hashbin_t
Hi Alan (and the others)
A few notes related to you *-ac* patches, the IrDA stack and
the Wavelan driver.
First, IrDA :
--- linux.vanilla/net/irda/irlap.cThu Feb 22 09:06:21 2001
+++ linux.ac/net/irda/irlap.c Wed Feb 21 11:55:26 2001
@@ -51,6 +51,7 @@
hashbin_t *irlap
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 05:48:47PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > It is a bug in the driver.
> >
> > Please check again the code and point me the invalid
> > udelay(). You will realise that there is no delay in the driver that
> > is longer than 100ms.
>
> The udelay limit is set a lot lower
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 05:13:42PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > This is a bug with the definition of udelay(). Somebody tried
> > to be too clever with udelay(), and the end result is that it breaks
> > perfectly good and valid code.
> > Therefore, it should be reported as such on LKML, a
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 07:17:01AM -0500, John Ruttenberg wrote:
> I get:
>
> Jan 9 07:04:51 mojo cardmgr[511]: socket 1: Digital RoamAbout/DS
> Jan 9 07:04:52 mojo cardmgr[511]: executing: 'modprobe wavelan_cs'
> Jan 9 07:04:52 mojo cardmgr[511]: +
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 07:17:01AM -0500, John Ruttenberg wrote:
I get:
Jan 9 07:04:51 mojo cardmgr[511]: socket 1: Digital RoamAbout/DS
Jan 9 07:04:52 mojo cardmgr[511]: executing: 'modprobe wavelan_cs'
Jan 9 07:04:52 mojo cardmgr[511]: +
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 05:13:42PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
This is a bug with the definition of udelay(). Somebody tried
to be too clever with udelay(), and the end result is that it breaks
perfectly good and valid code.
Therefore, it should be reported as such on LKML, a bug in
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 05:48:47PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
It is a bug in the driver.
Please check again the code and point me the invalid
udelay(). You will realise that there is no delay in the driver that
is longer than 100ms.
The udelay limit is set a lot lower than 100mS.
Hi Linus and Alan,
This is a totally trivial update of the Wireless Extensions
definition. It just adds a few more #define, so no troubles or pain
expected.
The patch attached applies cleanly to *both* 2.4.0-test12 and
2.2.18 (tested), and I would suggest including it in
Hi Linus and Alan,
This is a totally trivial update of the Wireless Extensions
definition. It just adds a few more #define, so no troubles or pain
expected.
The patch attached applies cleanly to *both* 2.4.0-test12 and
2.2.18 (tested), and I would suggest including it in
Alan wrote :
> struct wireless_physical
> struct wireless_80211
> struct wireless_auth
Please do not underestimate 802.11 (and others). Even two
cards based on the same MAC controller can have very different way
Ivan Passos wrote :
> For synchronous network interfaces, besides configuring network parameters
> such as IP address, netmask, MTU, etc., the system should also configure
> parameters specific to these sync i/f's, such as media (e.g V.35, X.21,
> T1, E1), clock (internal or external, and
Hi,
I was a GlobeCom 2 weeks ago, and I noticed a few articles
relevant to Linux networking that you might be interested in
reading...
On ECN :
--
Archan Misra, John Baras & Teunis Ott. Generalised TCP
Congestion Avoidance and its Effect on Bandwidth Sharing and
Hi,
I was a GlobeCom 2 weeks ago, and I noticed a few articles
relevant to Linux networking that you might be interested in
reading...
On ECN :
--
Archan Misra, John Baras Teunis Ott. Generalised TCP
Congestion Avoidance and its Effect on Bandwidth Sharing and
Alan wrote :
struct wireless_physical
struct wireless_80211
struct wireless_auth
Please do not underestimate 802.11 (and others). Even two
cards based on the same MAC controller can have very different way to
On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 06:43:26PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> Ok, thanks to the work of Jean, everything seems to be applied now.
>
> I'll make a test3 one of these days (probably tomorrow), please verify
> that everything looks happy.
>
> Linus
Linus,
On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 06:43:26PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Ok, thanks to the work of Jean, everything seems to be applied now.
I'll make a test3 one of these days (probably tomorrow), please verify
that everything looks happy.
Linus
Linus,
Sorry to
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 11:56:57AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> When I say multiple mails, I mean multiple mails. NOT "26 attachements in
> one mail". In fact, not a single attachment at all, please. Send me
> patches as a regular text body, with the explanation at the top, and the
> patch
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 07:24:04PM -0800, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
>
> I spent my full day going through my archives and splitting
> the big patch of Dag into lots of small patches (see attached). I'm
> glad I've got a big hard drive full of junk.
By the way, while I'
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 07:24:04PM -0800, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
I spent my full day going through my archives and splitting
the big patch of Dag into lots of small patches (see attached). I'm
glad I've got a big hard drive full of junk.
By the way, while I'm in flaming mode
On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 08:24:38PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> Take a look at
> http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9908.0/0669.html This
> happened with ISDN. Slightly different situation, but similar.
I'm familiar with that. The *BIG* difference is that Dag has
always
On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 08:24:38PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Take a look at
http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9908.0/0669.html This
happened with ISDN. Slightly different situation, but similar.
I'm familiar with that. The *BIG* difference is that Dag has
always sent
101 - 127 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
