TripleX Chung wrote:
> Jesper Juhl wrote:
>> Note: my explanations below are based on how I understand these
>> things, but I'm not the trivial patch monkey nor did I help create
>> these guidelines, so I'm in no way authoritative on the subject.
>>
>> On 13/07/07, TripleX Chung <[EMAIL
Al Boldi wrote:
>
> This should be the responsibility of the kexec'd hibernating kernel. Note
> though in (6), the normal kernel takes care of preparing devices, then the
> hibernating kernel dumps the image and either calls S4 or S3. On resume
> from S3 it can immediately switch over to the
Al Boldi wrote:
This should be the responsibility of the kexec'd hibernating kernel. Note
though in (6), the normal kernel takes care of preparing devices, then the
hibernating kernel dumps the image and either calls S4 or S3. On resume
from S3 it can immediately switch over to the
TripleX Chung wrote:
Jesper Juhl wrote:
Note: my explanations below are based on how I understand these
things, but I'm not the trivial patch monkey nor did I help create
these guidelines, so I'm in no way authoritative on the subject.
On 13/07/07, TripleX Chung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[snip]
>
> So if a user wants to install a kernel.org kernel on his system, (s)he'll have
> to compile and install two kernels with different options.
>
> That doesn't sound good to me. :-)
>
definitely. that sounds kind of strange, not to think of having to
remember
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So I can say that in linux 'thread' == 'process'?
>
No. It's more like, in linux threads are visible to the kernel (unlike
in N:1 thread models, linux is 1:1). Threads are the basic unit of
scheduling.
A process can have >1 threads.
> Is kernel routine 'kthread'
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I can say that in linux 'thread' == 'process'?
No. It's more like, in linux threads are visible to the kernel (unlike
in N:1 thread models, linux is 1:1). Threads are the basic unit of
scheduling.
A process can have 1 threads.
Is kernel routine 'kthread' creating
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[snip]
So if a user wants to install a kernel.org kernel on his system, (s)he'll have
to compile and install two kernels with different options.
That doesn't sound good to me. :-)
definitely. that sounds kind of strange, not to think of having to
remember which
Gautam Singaraju wrote:
> Is there any attempt being made to provide software based RSA
> cryptographic support in kernel? I see that Linux supports
> Hardware based cryptographic devices (VIA Padlock ACE). How is the
> performance of such hardware? How well are these devices supported?
> -GS
i
Gautam Singaraju wrote:
Is there any attempt being made to provide software based RSA
cryptographic support in kernel? I see that Linux supports
Hardware based cryptographic devices (VIA Padlock ACE). How is the
performance of such hardware? How well are these devices supported?
-GS
i fail
Renato S. Yamane wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is impossible use speedstep in my Laptop with Pentium M 1,86Ghz:
>
> #modprobe speedstep-centrino
> FATAL: Error inserting speedstep_centrino
> (/lib/modules/2.6.18-3-686/kernel/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/speedstep-centrino.ko):
> No such device
>
> To do
Renato S. Yamane wrote:
Hi,
Is impossible use speedstep in my Laptop with Pentium M 1,86Ghz:
#modprobe speedstep-centrino
FATAL: Error inserting speedstep_centrino
(/lib/modules/2.6.18-3-686/kernel/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/speedstep-centrino.ko):
No such device
To do that
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Jun 25 2007 09:37, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:15:50 +0200 (CEST) Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>> On Jun 25 2007 11:12, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
It is also quite likely the reply was written before reading the other
comments. With the volume on
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Jun 25 2007 09:37, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:15:50 +0200 (CEST) Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Jun 25 2007 11:12, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
It is also quite likely the reply was written before reading the other
comments. With the volume on lkml, reading all
Grozdan Nikolov wrote:
> On Saturday 23 June 2007 19:53, you wrote:
>> On Sat, 2007-06-23 at 14:17 +0200, Grozdan Nikolov wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> Please CC me as I'm not subscribe to this mailing list,
>> Perhaps you should change that and find most answers for yourself.
>>
>>> Thanks!
>> Thanks!
Hi,
I have a Kubuntu 7.04 distro with Qt4 development packages installed.
Trying to do a 'make xconfig' fails with:
HOSTCC scripts/basic/fixdep
HOSTCC scripts/basic/docproc
CHECK qt
*
* Unable to find the QT installation. Please make sure that
* the QT development package is correctly
Torsten Duwe wrote:
> On Saturday 23 June 2007, you wrote:
>
>> hmm, wasn't loadable kernel modules first implemented in SunOS 4.x [...]
> Yes, but that was pretty cumbersome. You had to resolve the symbols in user
> space, using a hopefully matching /vmunix. Linux was first to feature an
>
Torsten Duwe wrote:
On Saturday 23 June 2007, you wrote:
hmm, wasn't loadable kernel modules first implemented in SunOS 4.x [...]
Yes, but that was pretty cumbersome. You had to resolve the symbols in user
space, using a hopefully matching /vmunix. Linux was first to feature an
in-kernel
Hi,
I have a Kubuntu 7.04 distro with Qt4 development packages installed.
Trying to do a 'make xconfig' fails with:
HOSTCC scripts/basic/fixdep
HOSTCC scripts/basic/docproc
CHECK qt
*
* Unable to find the QT installation. Please make sure that
* the QT development package is correctly
Grozdan Nikolov wrote:
On Saturday 23 June 2007 19:53, you wrote:
On Sat, 2007-06-23 at 14:17 +0200, Grozdan Nikolov wrote:
[...]
Please CC me as I'm not subscribe to this mailing list,
Perhaps you should change that and find most answers for yourself.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Bernd
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Here's an idea that just occurred to me, after all the discussions
> about motivations, tit-for-tat, authors' wishes and all.
>
> If GPLv3 were to have a clause that permitted combination/linking with
> code under GPLv2, this wouldn't be enough for GPLv3 projects to use
>
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Here's an idea that just occurred to me, after all the discussions
about motivations, tit-for-tat, authors' wishes and all.
If GPLv3 were to have a clause that permitted combination/linking with
code under GPLv2, this wouldn't be enough for GPLv3 projects to use
Linux
Theodore Tso wrote:
> Basically, in the US, you get the best justice money can buy. :-)
that has to be one of the best one-liners ever! :)
>
> - Ted
-jb
--
Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy.
-
To unsubscribe from
Theodore Tso wrote:
Basically, in the US, you get the best justice money can buy. :-)
that has to be one of the best one-liners ever! :)
- Ted
-jb
--
Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy.
-
To unsubscribe from this
Lee Revell wrote:
> On 6/12/07, R.F. Burns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Is it possible to write a kernel module which, when loaded, will blow
>> the PC
>> speaker?
>
> LOL. May I ask what your use case is?
>
or isn't it mis-use case :)
> Lee
-jb
--
Tact is the art of making a point without
Lee Revell wrote:
On 6/12/07, R.F. Burns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it possible to write a kernel module which, when loaded, will blow
the PC
speaker?
LOL. May I ask what your use case is?
or isn't it mis-use case :)
Lee
-jb
--
Tact is the art of making a point without making an
Christoph Pleger wrote:
> Hello,
>
[snip]
> After the new kernel package had been created, I installed it. After
> that, I looked into the directory /boot and was very surprised: The
> initial ramdisk of the new kernel was much larger than the initrd of the
> old kernel. To find out the cause for
Christoph Pleger wrote:
Hello,
[snip]
After the new kernel package had been created, I installed it. After
that, I looked into the directory /boot and was very surprised: The
initial ramdisk of the new kernel was much larger than the initrd of the
old kernel. To find out the cause for this,
Stefan Richter wrote:
> Satyam Sharma wrote:
>> Coming back to the document, we do need to document / find
>> consensus on the "preferred" way to do similar business in the
>> kernel, and my opinion as far as that is concerned is to shun
>> volatile wherever possible (which includes the case
Stefan Richter wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
Coming back to the document, we do need to document / find
consensus on the preferred way to do similar business in the
kernel, and my opinion as far as that is concerned is to shun
volatile wherever possible (which includes the case originally
Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 02:08:54AM +0530, jimmy bahuleyan wrote:
>> Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>> [snip..]
>>> +
>>> + - The jiffies variable is special in that it can have a different value
>>> +every time it is referenc
Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 02:08:54AM +0530, jimmy bahuleyan wrote:
Jonathan Corbet wrote:
[snip..]
+
+ - The jiffies variable is special in that it can have a different value
+every time it is referenced, but it can be read without any special
+locking. So
Jonathan Corbet wrote:
[snip..]
> +
> + - The jiffies variable is special in that it can have a different value
> +every time it is referenced, but it can be read without any special
> +locking. So jiffies can be volatile, but the addition of other
> +variables of this type is
Jonathan Corbet wrote:
[snip..]
+
+ - The jiffies variable is special in that it can have a different value
+every time it is referenced, but it can be read without any special
+locking. So jiffies can be volatile, but the addition of other
+variables of this type is strongly
Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:22 +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
>
>> I'd recon KDE regresses because of kioslaves waiting on a pipe
>> (communication with the app they're doing IO for) and then expiring.
>> That's why splitting IO from an app isn't exactly smart. It should
Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:22 +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
I'd recon KDE regresses because of kioslaves waiting on a pipe
(communication with the app they're doing IO for) and then expiring.
That's why splitting IO from an app isn't exactly smart. It should at
36 matches
Mail list logo
