On 2008-01-14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It sounds like you have CONFIG_PM_TRACE turned on. From the Kconfig help:
It isn't listed in /proc/config.gz. No, I don't think I even have
swsusp stuff compiled in, if it's related to that.
--
Tuomo
--
To unsubscribe from this lis
On 2008-01-14, Bernd Petrovitsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But for normal PCs, I don't know how much the quality of a PSU is
> relevant for the speed of the clock.
> Can you test with a different PSU?
I am testing right now. After all I had to get a new PSU, the old one
being as dead as a rock.
On 2008-01-14 10:57 +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> That leads to the question why the clock starts to run like crazy at
> some time so that `ntpd` can't cope with it.
I do wonder whether the PSU could've been causing it. Now that think
about it, I got the PSU around two years ago, just like I c
On 2008-01-14 11:06 +0100, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> So why don't you fix it first? Correct system time is essential.
I've tried tuning it with adjtimex and everything, and sometimes it
works for days, but then just suddenly the clock starts advancing.
> I guess I would upgrade to some newer vers
On 2008-01-14, Bernd Petrovitsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, that is a usual bug/problem in common distributions[0] as there is
> no real guarantee that your clock is not far off.
It isn't, right after boot. But while the system is on, it sometimes
starts advancing very fast, 15min a day or
On 2008-01-13 18:11 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> It's much more likely that this early in your boot cycle, your clock is
> sometimes incorrect.
I doubt it. I get this nearly _always_ when the system crashes, which
accounts for the vast majority of the times I boot it. (I wish swsusp
didn't suck so
On 2008-01-14 00:13 +0200, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
> Also, I must say that e2fsck is brain-damaged, if it can be confused
> by/do the stupid then when the system clock has warped by just a few
> hours, not the _days_ that a file system check interval typically is,
> and users need to
On 2008-01-12 10:06 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> So running the "date" command after the boot sequence is completely
> finished. That doesn't mean that system clock was correct at the time
> when fsck is run.
Unless ntpd has managed to change it by that time, it was correct,
in the local time
On 2008-01-10 08:16 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > It displays just the right time. On boot anyway. (Linux has had some
> > serious problems keeping the time after the switch from 2.6.7 to 2.6.14,
> > advanding even 15 minutes a day -- that ntpd doesn't seem to be able
> > to keep up with -- requi
On 2008-01-09, Mathieu SEGAUD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> fix your hardware clock then
It displays just the right time. On boot anyway. (Linux has had some
serious problems keeping the time after the switch from 2.6.7 to 2.6.14,
advanding even 15 minutes a day -- that ntpd doesn't seem to be able
On 2008-01-09 00:06 +0100, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
> That what LABEL und UUID-Support in mount is for.
That's udev shit. I don't want it.
--
Tuomo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info a
On 2008-01-08, Diego Calleja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://freebsd.org
> http://netbsd.org
> http://openbsd.org
> http://opensolaris.org
>
> There're so many options, that wasting your time arguing with people that
> thinks
> that you're a troll is worthless.
Unfortunately they do not suppo
On 2008-01-08, Andre Noll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not a workaround. The ext3 maintainers argue that every file
> system should be checked from time to time. Therefore it's the
> default. You do not agree with them, so change the default and be
> happy.
The thing is, I agree with them (a
On 2008-01-08, Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm . Replace Windows by favorite OS you wanted to originally have>.
Linux is too much like Windows, and that's a big part of the problem.
People are obssessed on providing WIMPshit interfaces to everyth
On 2008-01-08, Masoud Sharbiani "Ù
سعÙد شربÛاÙÛ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> It isn't a bug. It is a feature;
To me, it seems to be a rather clear bug when the last-checked field
contains an absurd value of years ago, on _all_ disks, and yet there's
no complaint of other superblock
On 2008-01-08, Andre Noll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Use tune2fs to deactivate checking.
So, a workaround is the answer to a clear bug. Typical FOSS.
> Modify the init scripts or use another distro.
Another typical FOSS answer. "You have the source, you can fix it."
With what time?
> Don't us
On 2008-01-08, Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roll your own.
Nah, too much work, and I want all distros to perish.
> "Power users" may still
> use the index= option of sound card modules and wire it up in
> /etc/modprobe.d if they prefer.
Another very cryptic directory whose conte
On 2008-01-08, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> tune2fs -i0 -c0 device for each file system
>
> Yes that should be default, unfortunately it is not. It's one
> of the first things I do on new machines.
I have ages ago increased those counts, but I don't want to
completely disable them
On 2008-01-08, John Stoffel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Look at your filesystems, using 'tune2fs' and see if the ext3 journal
> is actually turned on and used. If it's not, then I can see why
> you're having problems on reboots.
Journalling is on, but it's no use because the superblock always
On 2008-01-08, Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do it step-by-step.
Still too much work.
> I can recommend that you try another distribution then.
They all suck.
>>that load drivers in wrong order etc.,
>
> What specific modules and which order do you need for the disks?
> There is a
The ext3 journalling code can be summarised as:
superblock->last_checked = random();
sync(superblock)
I hate it: every time Linux crashes, e.g. due to power failure, it takes
almost an hour to boot, because the kernel has decided to corrupt the
superblock to indicate that it's been year
On 2007-11-13 13:28 +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
> The only problem with djb's scheme is that you cannot mirror the software
> unless given permission from the author. No, not even unmodified source.
So? That's why I also call it the "piractic license" and the "apathy
license" -- do what you
On 2007-11-13 00:39 +0100, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
> That's the problem(tm).
>
> Contrary to Closed Source Software all(!) OSS-Software is
> interdependent. There is no "Stand-Alone"-Software. There is always at
> least "libc". (Scripts depend on a script-interpreter, which in turn
> dep
On 2007-11-12, Rogelio M. Serrano Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I dont understand. You are supposed to go to jail for looking at closed
> source, right? And licenses are very expensive. I could not afford them
> when i started out but now i would rather spend the money on other
> things like FPG
On 2007-11-12, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Either they are empty transition packages depending on the linux-*
> packages or you are not using Debian stable but Debian oldstable (the
> latter would be funny in the context of your complaints...).
Well, I'm using two years old 2.6.7 ke
On 2007-11-12 17:56 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Yes, by asking immediately
> Is this issue still present with $latest_upstream_version?
That's still a user complaining about problems fixed ages ago,
and a couple more who never even bothered complaining, just
decided that the software is crap bec
On 2007-11-12, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Geeks like you and me want the latest software
> (I'm using Debian unstable/testing).
>
> But most users want a Linux installation that simply works - and this
> includes all software on the system at all times.
I'm not in either category. I
On 2007-11-12 16:20 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The problem is not what the distributions ship, the problem is simply
> that problems with distribution packaged software should be reported
> to the distribution, not upstream.
>
> And for becoming at least marginally on-topic again:
> Assuming yo
On 2007-11-12, Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think a megafreeze development model is sane. Finding a collection
> of software versions that are all known to work together is very
> interesting, and useful. Making it so you can deliver something that
> just works to end users is
29 matches
Mail list logo
