On 12/1/06, Mike Mattie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In an attempt to debug another kernel issue I turned on the lock validator and
managed to generate this report.
As a side note the first attempt to boot with the lock validator failed with
a message indicating I had exceeded MAX_LOCK_DEPTH. To
On 12/1/06, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 22:00 -0800, Hua Zhong wrote:
> I am curious, what's the point?
>
> These email addresses serve a "historical" purpose: they tell when the
contribution was made, what the author's email addresses
> were at that
On 12/1/06, Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 22:00 -0800, Hua Zhong wrote:
I am curious, what's the point?
These email addresses serve a historical purpose: they tell when the
contribution was made, what the author's email addresses
were at that point.
On 12/1/06, Mike Mattie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In an attempt to debug another kernel issue I turned on the lock validator and
managed to generate this report.
As a side note the first attempt to boot with the lock validator failed with
a message indicating I had exceeded MAX_LOCK_DEPTH. To
On 8/14/05, Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know the alternatives are available. That doesn't make it any less
> idiotic to use non ASCII characters as operators. I think it's a very
> slippery slope. We write code in ASCII, dammit.
Yes you and I might write 99.9% of our code in
On 8/14/05, Lee Revell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know the alternatives are available. That doesn't make it any less
idiotic to use non ASCII characters as operators. I think it's a very
slippery slope. We write code in ASCII, dammit.
Yes you and I might write 99.9% of our code in good'ol
On 8/13/05, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patch adds support for UTF-8 signatures (aka BOM, byte order
> mark) to binfmt_script.
> With such support, creating scripts that reliably carry non-ASCII
> characters is simplified.
> the approach would naturally extend to Perl to
On 8/13/05, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch adds support for UTF-8 signatures (aka BOM, byte order
mark) to binfmt_script.
With such support, creating scripts that reliably carry non-ASCII
characters is simplified.
the approach would naturally extend to Perl to
On 8/5/05, Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm. If we had kcmalloc then we may be able to add a zero bit to the slab
> allocator. If we would obtain zeroed pages for the slab then we may skip
> zeroing of individual entries. However, the cache warming effect of the
> current
On 8/5/05, Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > This would imply a similiar kmalloc() would be useful as well.
> > > Second, how relevant is it for the kernel?
> > we've had a non-negliable amount of security holes because of this
> So why
On 8/5/05, Roman Zippel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
This would imply a similiar kmalloc() would be useful as well.
Second, how relevant is it for the kernel?
we've had a non-negliable amount of security holes because of this
So why don't we have
On 8/5/05, Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm. If we had kcmalloc then we may be able to add a zero bit to the slab
allocator. If we would obtain zeroed pages for the slab then we may skip
zeroing of individual entries. However, the cache warming effect of the
current zeroing is
On 7/29/05, Vitor Curado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You assumed right, Stephen: I'm interested in QoS process scheduling,
> sorry for not specifying it...
>
> I'm taking a deeper look at the qlinux, ckrm and the plugsched
> schedulers, if you have any more links, please send them to me...
Also
On 7/25/05, Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 23:21 -0400, Mace Moneta wrote:
> > The response seems meaningless; does this constitute a violation of
> > GPL?
> > If so what, if any, action needs to be taken?
http://gpl-violations.org/
On 7/25/05, Lee Revell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 23:21 -0400, Mace Moneta wrote:
The response seems meaningless; does this constitute a violation of
GPL?
If so what, if any, action needs to be taken?
http://gpl-violations.org/
On 7/14/05, Eric St-Laurent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 17:24 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Trust me. When I say that the right thing to do is to just have a fixed
> > (but high) HZ value, and just changing the timer rate, I'm -right-.
> Of course you are, jiffies are
On 7/14/05, Eric St-Laurent [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 17:24 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Trust me. When I say that the right thing to do is to just have a fixed
(but high) HZ value, and just changing the timer rate, I'm -right-.
Of course you are, jiffies are simple and
17 matches
Mail list logo
