"J . A . Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 06.07 Nico Schottelius wrote:
> > >
> > > Based upon the lspci output you posted earlier, aic7880 has a single
> > > SCSI bus.
> >
> > Oh. That could really be a problem.. I though having two different
> > connectors on the board would make
J . A . Magallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 06.07 Nico Schottelius wrote:
Based upon the lspci output you posted earlier, aic7880 has a single
SCSI bus.
Oh. That could really be a problem.. I though having two different
connectors on the board would make two different buses..
Studierende der Universitaet des Saarlandes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Could you post the output of
>
> #tulip-diag -mm -aa -f
>
> with the broken driver?
> Some code that's required for Linksys Tulip clones was moved from pnic
> specific part into the generic part, perhaps that causes
Studierende der Universitaet des Saarlandes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could you post the output of
#tulip-diag -mm -aa -f
with the broken driver?
Some code that's required for Linksys Tulip clones was moved from pnic
specific part into the generic part, perhaps that causes problems.
i
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Yiping Chen wrote:
>
> > So, I have two question now,
> > 1. how to determine whether your kernel support SMP?
> > Somebody taugh me that you can type "uname -r", but it seems not
> > correct.
>
> No, it's correct: the Red Hat RPM is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Yiping Chen wrote:
So, I have two question now,
1. how to determine whether your kernel support SMP?
Somebody taugh me that you can type uname -r, but it seems not
correct.
No, it's correct: the Red Hat RPM is build from the
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> >
> > > Another example: all the stupid pseudo-SCSI drivers that got their own
> > > major numbers, and wanted their very own names in /dev. They are BAD for
> > > the user. Install-scripts etc used to be able to just test
"H. Peter Anvin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alan Cox wrote:
Another example: all the stupid pseudo-SCSI drivers that got their own
major numbers, and wanted their very own names in /dev. They are BAD for
the user. Install-scripts etc used to be able to just test /dev/hd[a-d]
and
Ion Badulescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > Oh I can see why Hans wants to cut down his bug reporting load. I can also
> > say from experience it wont work. If you put #error in then everyone will
> > mail him and complain it doesnt build, if you put
Ion Badulescu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
Oh I can see why Hans wants to cut down his bug reporting load. I can also
say from experience it wont work. If you put #error in then everyone will
mail him and complain it doesnt build, if you put #warning in
"paradox3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here is the output from dmesg. How do I tell if it is improperly
> terminated?
you never gave the model of the hard drive (or if you did, i didn't
see it), but you did say a 10k rpm ibm. i am going to assume it is
u2w/lvd capable. no lvd hard drive has
"paradox3" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here is the output from dmesg. How do I tell if it is improperly
terminated?
you never gave the model of the hard drive (or if you did, i didn't
see it), but you did say a 10k rpm ibm. i am going to assume it is
u2w/lvd capable. no lvd hard drive has
"paradox3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I did this:
>
> date
> dd if=/dev/zero of=TESTFILE bs=1024 count=102400
> date
> sync
> date
>
>
> and I gave the time differences from the first to the last
> timestamp.
hmm. i ran this on my old ppro200 with adaptec 2940uw and ibm
DDRS-39130W
"paradox3" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I did this:
date
dd if=/dev/zero of=TESTFILE bs=1024 count=102400
date
sync
date
and I gave the time differences from the first to the last
timestamp.
hmm. i ran this on my old ppro200 with adaptec 2940uw and ibm
DDRS-39130W drive.
Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> > yes, but is it a dual machine or is it an N-way SMP with N > 2? the
> > other guy with iptables/SMP problems also has a quad box. could this
> > perhaps be a problem only when you have more than two
Rusty Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
yes, but is it a dual machine or is it an N-way SMP with N 2? the
other guy with iptables/SMP problems also has a quad box. could this
perhaps be a problem only when you have more than two processors?
Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> >
> > I have 2.4.0 test 10 and test 11 installed on a multiprocessor (Intel)
> > machine. I have tried both test versions of the kernel. I configured
> > the kernel for single
> > and multi processor.
Rusty Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
I have 2.4.0 test 10 and test 11 installed on a multiprocessor (Intel)
machine. I have tried both test versions of the kernel. I configured
the kernel for single
and multi processor. When I boot
Roger Crandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I should have mentioned this is a 4 processor machine with a 64 bit
> buss.
perhaps the netfilter stuff isn't 4-way SMP safe. my quad ppro box
seizes with iptables too. however, many people report it working with
2-way SMP boxen.
has anyone gotten
Roger Crandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have 2.4.0 test 10 and test 11 installed on a multiprocessor (Intel)
> machine. I have tried both test versions of the kernel. I configured
> the kernel for single
> and multi processor. When I boot single processor, iptables will run
> fine.
Roger Crandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have 2.4.0 test 10 and test 11 installed on a multiprocessor (Intel)
machine. I have tried both test versions of the kernel. I configured
the kernel for single
and multi processor. When I boot single processor, iptables will run
fine. When I
Roger Crandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I should have mentioned this is a 4 processor machine with a 64 bit
buss.
perhaps the netfilter stuff isn't 4-way SMP safe. my quad ppro box
seizes with iptables too. however, many people report it working with
2-way SMP boxen.
has anyone gotten
Harald Welte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 11:59:51PM +0200, J . A . Magallon wrote:
> > Hi, everybody.
> >
> > Kernel 2.2.18-pre15 compiles fine under gcc-2.95.2. It is just plain
> > 2.2.17 with Alan's patch to 18-pre15.
> >
> > I downloaded the gcc-2.96 rpms from
Harald Welte [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 11:59:51PM +0200, J . A . Magallon wrote:
Hi, everybody.
Kernel 2.2.18-pre15 compiles fine under gcc-2.95.2. It is just plain
2.2.17 with Alan's patch to 18-pre15.
I downloaded the gcc-2.96 rpms from rufus, and the
Carsten Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
> i don't want to start discussing the pros and cons of using C++ in kernel
> development.
> BUT: why do we blame people if they want to?
several reasons
1) this thread keeps coming back on linux-kernel and various linux
related usenet
Carsten Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
i don't want to start discussing the pros and cons of using C++ in kernel
development.
BUT: why do we blame people if they want to?
several reasons
1) this thread keeps coming back on linux-kernel and various linux
related usenet groups
26 matches
Mail list logo
