* Chris Wright ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Alan Cox ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Yeah - fix your mailer, you got a reply 5 days ago.
>
> Sure wouldn't be the first time something broke. I'll take a look.
Thanks for the prod. I found 2 quite stale RBL entries, causing
long connection delay
* Alan Cox ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Yeah - fix your mailer, you got a reply 5 days ago.
Sure wouldn't be the first time something broke. I'll take a look.
thanks,
-chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mo
> It's there specifically to fish out why it was sent to -stable w/out
> ever making it upstream. Having sent the same question w/ no response
> 5 days ago
Yeah - fix your mailer, you got a reply 5 days ago.
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the bo
On Mon, 21 May 2007 16:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 21 May 2007, Chris Wright wrote:
> > ---
> > [chrisw: Why is this not upstream yet?]
>
> And equally importantly, why is it even in the stable queue if it's not
> upstream.
Its not relevant to ups
On Mon, 21 May 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > And no, I do not think it's languishing in my mailqueue. I'm pretty sure
> > it's languishing somewhere else.
>
> AFAIK it was obsoleted by another Tejun patch which -is- upstream.
>
> Am I missing something?
Ahh, in that case it should hopefully be
* Linus Torvalds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2007, Chris Wright wrote:
> > ---
> > [chrisw: Why is this not upstream yet?]
>
> And equally importantly, why is it even in the stable queue if it's not
> upstream.
>
> It's against stable rules, and it means that we may have stuff th
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2007, Chris Wright wrote:
---
[chrisw: Why is this not upstream yet?]
And equally importantly, why is it even in the stable queue if it's not
upstream.
It's against stable rules, and it means that we may have stuff that gets
fixed in -stable and not in
On Mon, 21 May 2007, Chris Wright wrote:
> ---
> [chrisw: Why is this not upstream yet?]
And equally importantly, why is it even in the stable queue if it's not
upstream.
It's against stable rules, and it means that we may have stuff that gets
fixed in -stable and not in -upstream, if people
-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
-
From: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If you have a controller with one channel disabled and unmapped the new
iomap code blindly tries to iomap unconfigured BARs. Later on the code
does the right thing and
9 matches
Mail list logo
