Le vendredi 14 décembre 2007 à 09:28 -0800, Greg KH a écrit :
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 10:37:39PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 08:26:42AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 09:21:26PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > * Kay Sievers <[EMAIL
Le vendredi 14 décembre 2007 à 09:28 -0800, Greg KH a écrit :
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 10:37:39PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 08:26:42AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 09:21:26PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Kay Sievers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 10:37:39PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 08:26:42AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 09:21:26PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Kay Sievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > This one also fails to apply properly
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 08:26:42AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 09:21:26PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Kay Sievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > This one also fails to apply properly at the exact same place
> > > > > > has Ingo's previously posted patch.
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 09:21:26PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Kay Sievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > This one also fails to apply properly at the exact same place
> > > > > has Ingo's previously posted patch. Would need to backport his
> > > > > one.
> > > >
> > > > It
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 09:21:26PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Kay Sievers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This one also fails to apply properly at the exact same place
has Ingo's previously posted patch. Would need to backport his
one.
It depends on a completely reworked
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 08:26:42AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 09:21:26PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Kay Sievers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This one also fails to apply properly at the exact same place
has Ingo's previously posted patch. Would need to
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 10:37:39PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 08:26:42AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 09:21:26PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Kay Sievers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This one also fails to apply properly at the exact same
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 09:21:26PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Kay Sievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > This one also fails to apply properly at the exact same place
> > > > > has Ingo's previously posted patch. Would need to backport his
> > > > > one.
> > > >
> > > > It
* Kay Sievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > This one also fails to apply properly at the exact same place
> > > > has Ingo's previously posted patch. Would need to backport his
> > > > one.
> > >
> > > It depends on a completely reworked sysfs logic, I don't think it
> > > makes any
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 05:50:59PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Kay Sievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > + sa->attr.owner = NULL;
> > > > > > sa->attr.name = name;
> > > > >
> > > > > i'm wondering why doesnt this affect 2.6.23 and later? Does sysfs
> > > > > initialize the
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 17:50 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Kay Sievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > + sa->attr.owner = NULL;
> > > > > > sa->attr.name = name;
> > > > >
> > > > > i'm wondering why doesnt this affect 2.6.23 and later? Does sysfs
> > > > > initialize the owner
* Kay Sievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > + sa->attr.owner = NULL;
> > > > > sa->attr.name = name;
> > > >
> > > > i'm wondering why doesnt this affect 2.6.23 and later? Does sysfs
> > > > initialize the owner field to NULL automatically?
> > >
> > > Attibutes do not have an
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 15:02 +, Vincent Fortier wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 08:59 -0500, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 13:55 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Dhaval Giani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Could you please see if the following patch removes the oops
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 08:59 -0500, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 13:55 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Dhaval Giani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Could you please see if the following patch removes the oops due
> to
> > > CFS sysfs files? (There might still be the other oops
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 01:24:26PM +, Vincent Fortier wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 18:32 +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 01:55:09PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Dhaval Giani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Could you please see if the following
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 13:55 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Dhaval Giani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Could you please see if the following patch removes the oops due to
> > CFS sysfs files? (There might still be the other oops due to the
> > floppy sysfs files)
> >
> > Ingo, could you
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 08:12 -0500, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Dhaval Giani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > static void user_attr_init(struct subsys_attribute *sa, char
> *name, int mode)
> > > > {
> > > > + sa->attr.owner = NULL;
> > > > sa->attr.name = name;
> > >
> > > i'm wondering why
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 18:32 +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 01:55:09PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Dhaval Giani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Could you please see if the following patch removes the oops due to
> > > CFS sysfs files? (There might still be the
* Dhaval Giani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > static void user_attr_init(struct subsys_attribute *sa, char *name, int
> > > mode)
> > > {
> > > + sa->attr.owner = NULL;
> > > sa->attr.name = name;
> >
> > i'm wondering why doesnt this affect 2.6.23 and later? Does sysfs
> > initialize
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 01:55:09PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Dhaval Giani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Could you please see if the following patch removes the oops due to
> > CFS sysfs files? (There might still be the other oops due to the
> > floppy sysfs files)
> >
> > Ingo, could
* Dhaval Giani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could you please see if the following patch removes the oops due to
> CFS sysfs files? (There might still be the other oops due to the
> floppy sysfs files)
>
> Ingo, could you please add this patch in your CFS backport to 2.6.22
> and older
Hi Vincent,
Could you please see if the following patch removes the oops due to CFS
sysfs files? (There might still be the other oops due to the floppy
sysfs files)
Ingo, could you please add this patch in your CFS backport to 2.6.22 and
older kernels?
Thanks,
--
kdump showed that the owner
Hi Vincent,
Could you please see if the following patch removes the oops due to CFS
sysfs files? (There might still be the other oops due to the floppy
sysfs files)
Ingo, could you please add this patch in your CFS backport to 2.6.22 and
older kernels?
Thanks,
--
kdump showed that the owner
* Dhaval Giani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you please see if the following patch removes the oops due to
CFS sysfs files? (There might still be the other oops due to the
floppy sysfs files)
Ingo, could you please add this patch in your CFS backport to 2.6.22
and older kernels?
sure
* Dhaval Giani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
static void user_attr_init(struct subsys_attribute *sa, char *name, int
mode)
{
+ sa-attr.owner = NULL;
sa-attr.name = name;
i'm wondering why doesnt this affect 2.6.23 and later? Does sysfs
initialize the owner field to NULL
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 18:32 +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 01:55:09PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Dhaval Giani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you please see if the following patch removes the oops due to
CFS sysfs files? (There might still be the other oops due
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 01:55:09PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Dhaval Giani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you please see if the following patch removes the oops due to
CFS sysfs files? (There might still be the other oops due to the
floppy sysfs files)
Ingo, could you please add
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 08:12 -0500, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Dhaval Giani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
static void user_attr_init(struct subsys_attribute *sa, char
*name, int mode)
{
+ sa-attr.owner = NULL;
sa-attr.name = name;
i'm wondering why doesnt this affect 2.6.23 and
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 13:55 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Dhaval Giani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you please see if the following patch removes the oops due to
CFS sysfs files? (There might still be the other oops due to the
floppy sysfs files)
Ingo, could you please add this
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 01:24:26PM +, Vincent Fortier wrote:
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 18:32 +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 01:55:09PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Dhaval Giani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you please see if the following patch removes the
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 08:59 -0500, Kay Sievers wrote:
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 13:55 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Dhaval Giani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you please see if the following patch removes the oops due
to
CFS sysfs files? (There might still be the other oops due to the
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 15:02 +, Vincent Fortier wrote:
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 08:59 -0500, Kay Sievers wrote:
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 13:55 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Dhaval Giani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you please see if the following patch removes the oops due
to
CFS
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 17:50 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Kay Sievers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ sa-attr.owner = NULL;
sa-attr.name = name;
i'm wondering why doesnt this affect 2.6.23 and later? Does sysfs
initialize the owner field to NULL automatically?
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 05:50:59PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Kay Sievers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ sa-attr.owner = NULL;
sa-attr.name = name;
i'm wondering why doesnt this affect 2.6.23 and later? Does sysfs
initialize the owner field to NULL automatically?
* Kay Sievers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ sa-attr.owner = NULL;
sa-attr.name = name;
i'm wondering why doesnt this affect 2.6.23 and later? Does sysfs
initialize the owner field to NULL automatically?
Attibutes do not have an owner anymore:
* Kay Sievers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This one also fails to apply properly at the exact same place
has Ingo's previously posted patch. Would need to backport his
one.
It depends on a completely reworked sysfs logic, I don't think it
makes any sense to backport that.
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 09:21:26PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Kay Sievers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This one also fails to apply properly at the exact same place
has Ingo's previously posted patch. Would need to backport his
one.
It depends on a completely reworked
> -Message d'origine-
> De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Dhaval Giani
>
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 07:57:33AM -0500, Fortier,Vincent
> [Montreal] wrote:
> > > -Message d'origine-
> > > De : Dhaval Giani [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > On
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 07:57:33AM -0500, Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] wrote:
> > -Message d'origine-
> > De : Dhaval Giani [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 10:06:53PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> -Message d'origine-
> De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de
> Fortier,Vincent [Montreal]
>
> > -Message d'origine-
> > De : Dhaval Giani [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 10:06:53PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > *
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Dhaval Giani [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 10:06:53PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > That has changed from /sys/kernel/uids//cpu_share
> > >
> > > Here is my
-Message d'origine-
De : Dhaval Giani [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 10:06:53PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That has changed from /sys/kernel/uids/uid/cpu_share
Here is my config.
Maybie
-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de
Fortier,Vincent [Montreal]
-Message d'origine-
De : Dhaval Giani [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 10:06:53PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Fortier,Vincent
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 07:57:33AM -0500, Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] wrote:
-Message d'origine-
De : Dhaval Giani [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 10:06:53PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That has
-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Dhaval Giani
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 07:57:33AM -0500, Fortier,Vincent
[Montreal] wrote:
-Message d'origine-
De : Dhaval Giani [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 10:06:53PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > That has changed from /sys/kernel/uids//cpu_share
> > >
> >
> > Here is my config.
> >
> > Maybie I should give it a shot without CFS at all and see what
> >
* Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That has changed from /sys/kernel/uids//cpu_share
> >
>
> Here is my config.
>
> Maybie I should give it a shot without CFS at all and see what
> happends ?
and also with CFS but without CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED.
Ingo
--
To
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 10:53:38PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:04:00AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 10:13:19PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:24:37PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 09:15:01AM
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:08:15 -0500 Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] wrote:
> > -Message d'origine-
> > De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Dhaval Giani
> >
> > > >
> > > > My tests with Galaxy 5.9 shows that it still does not work.
> > > > Although, the error
> >
> > My tests with Galaxy 5.9 shows that it still does not work. Although,
> > the error seems to have changed a bit (see attached dmesg)
> >
>
> Hmmm, makes me suspect the bug is somewhere else. What I am not able to
> figure out is that I was able to recreate the trace you had on my
>
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 12:47:29PM -0500, Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] wrote:
> > -Message d'origine-
> > De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Dhaval Giani
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:04:00AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at
> -Message d'origine-
> De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Dhaval Giani
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:04:00AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 10:13:19PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:24:37PM +0530, Dhaval
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:04:00AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 10:13:19PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:24:37PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 09:15:01AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:03:17 -0500
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 10:13:19PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:24:37PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 09:15:01AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:03:17 -0500 Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] wrote:
> > >
> > > Ingo, can you look
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:24:37PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 09:15:01AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:03:17 -0500 Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] wrote:
> >
> > Ingo, can you look at this, please?
> > Vincent is getting oopses on 2.6.22.14-cfs-etch.
>
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 09:15:01AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:03:17 -0500 Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] wrote:
>
> Ingo, can you look at this, please?
> Vincent is getting oopses on 2.6.22.14-cfs-etch.
>
Hi,
We are looking into this bug now. I believe that the patch at
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 09:15:01AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:03:17 -0500 Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] wrote:
Ingo, can you look at this, please?
Vincent is getting oopses on 2.6.22.14-cfs-etch.
Hi,
We are looking into this bug now. I believe that the patch at
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:24:37PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 09:15:01AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:03:17 -0500 Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] wrote:
Ingo, can you look at this, please?
Vincent is getting oopses on 2.6.22.14-cfs-etch.
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 10:13:19PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:24:37PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 09:15:01AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:03:17 -0500 Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] wrote:
Ingo, can you look at this,
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:04:00AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 10:13:19PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:24:37PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 09:15:01AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:03:17 -0500
-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Dhaval Giani
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:04:00AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 10:13:19PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:24:37PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 12:47:29PM -0500, Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] wrote:
-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Dhaval Giani
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:04:00AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 10:13:19PM +0530,
My tests with Galaxy 5.9 shows that it still does not work. Although,
the error seems to have changed a bit (see attached dmesg)
Hmmm, makes me suspect the bug is somewhere else. What I am not able to
figure out is that I was able to recreate the trace you had on my
systems. So
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:08:15 -0500 Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] wrote:
-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Dhaval Giani
My tests with Galaxy 5.9 shows that it still does not work.
Although, the error seems to have
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 10:53:38PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:04:00AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 10:13:19PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:24:37PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 09:15:01AM -0800,
* Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That has changed from /sys/kernel/uids/uid/cpu_share
Here is my config.
Maybie I should give it a shot without CFS at all and see what
happends ?
and also with CFS but without CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED.
Ingo
--
To
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 10:06:53PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That has changed from /sys/kernel/uids/uid/cpu_share
Here is my config.
Maybie I should give it a shot without CFS at all and see what
happends ?
and also
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Randy Dunlap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Envoyé : 10 décembre 2007 12:15
>
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:03:17 -0500 Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] wrote:
>
> Ingo, can you look at this, please?
> Vincent is getting oopses on 2.6.22.14-cfs-etch.
>
> Vincent, did you
Andrew Morton
> > Cc : linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > Objet : RE: 2.6.22.14 oops msg with commvault galaxy ?
> >
> > > -Message d'origine-
> > > De : Randy Dunlap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoyé :
> > 7 décembre
> > > 2007 20:15
> > >
&
> -Message d'origine-
> De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de
> Fortier,Vincent [Montreal]
> Envoyé : 10 décembre 2007 08:21
> À : Randy Dunlap; Andrew Morton
> Cc : linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Objet : RE: 2.6.22.14 oops m
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Randy Dunlap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Envoyé : 7 décembre 2007 20:15
>
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:11:13 -0800 Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:15:36 -0800
> > Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > Help would really be
-Message d'origine-
De : Randy Dunlap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : 7 décembre 2007 20:15
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:11:13 -0800 Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:15:36 -0800
Randy Dunlap [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Help would really be appreciated.
Let's
-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de
Fortier,Vincent [Montreal]
Envoyé : 10 décembre 2007 08:21
À : Randy Dunlap; Andrew Morton
Cc : linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Objet : RE: 2.6.22.14 oops msg with commvault galaxy
: RE: 2.6.22.14 oops msg with commvault galaxy ?
-Message d'origine-
De : Randy Dunlap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoyé :
7 décembre
2007 20:15
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:11:13 -0800 Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:15:36 -0800
Randy Dunlap [EMAIL
-Message d'origine-
De : Randy Dunlap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : 10 décembre 2007 12:15
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:03:17 -0500 Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] wrote:
Ingo, can you look at this, please?
Vincent is getting oopses on 2.6.22.14-cfs-etch.
Vincent, did you apply the
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:11:13 -0800 Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:15:36 -0800
> Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Help would really be appreciated.
> >
> > Let's try the last_sysfs_file (name) patch.
> > I've attempted to update it for 2.6.22.14.
> > Andrew, does this
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:15:36 -0800
Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Help would really be appreciated.
>
> Let's try the last_sysfs_file (name) patch.
> I've attempted to update it for 2.6.22.14.
> Andrew, does this change in fs/sysfs/file.c look OK?
umm, yup.
On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:47:01 + Vincent Fortier wrote:
> Le vendredi 30 novembre 2007 à 12:35 -0500, Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] a
> écrit :
> > > -Message d'origine-
> > > De : Randy Dunlap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Envoyé : 30 novembre 2007 12:13
> > >
> > > On Fri, 30 Nov
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:11:13 -0800 Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:15:36 -0800
Randy Dunlap [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Help would really be appreciated.
Let's try the last_sysfs_file (name) patch.
I've attempted to update it for 2.6.22.14.
Andrew, does this change in
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:15:36 -0800
Randy Dunlap [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Help would really be appreciated.
Let's try the last_sysfs_file (name) patch.
I've attempted to update it for 2.6.22.14.
Andrew, does this change in fs/sysfs/file.c look OK?
umm, yup.
On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:47:01 + Vincent Fortier wrote:
Le vendredi 30 novembre 2007 à 12:35 -0500, Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] a
écrit :
-Message d'origine-
De : Randy Dunlap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : 30 novembre 2007 12:13
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:02:54 +
Le vendredi 30 novembre 2007 à 12:35 -0500, Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] a
écrit :
> > -Message d'origine-
> > De : Randy Dunlap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Envoyé : 30 novembre 2007 12:13
> >
> > On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:02:54 + Vincent Fortier wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > >
Le vendredi 30 novembre 2007 à 12:35 -0500, Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] a
écrit :
-Message d'origine-
De : Randy Dunlap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : 30 novembre 2007 12:13
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:02:54 + Vincent Fortier wrote:
Hi all,
I'm using a 2.6.22.14
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Randy Dunlap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Envoyé : 30 novembre 2007 12:13
>
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:02:54 + Vincent Fortier wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm using a 2.6.22.14 + CFS v24 and I got theses errors
> when starting
> > up my commvault galaxy
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:02:54 + Vincent Fortier wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm using a 2.6.22.14 + CFS v24 and I got theses errors when starting up
> my commvault galaxy client... Do anybody know what this could mean?
Can you provide a few lines of syslog before the Oops: line,
which should
Hi all,
I'm using a 2.6.22.14 + CFS v24 and I got theses errors when starting up
my commvault galaxy client... Do anybody know what this could mean?
Message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] at Fri Nov 30 12:54:57 2007 ...
printemps kernel: [750078.538268] Oops: [#1]
printemps kernel: [750078.538284]
-Message d'origine-
De : Randy Dunlap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : 30 novembre 2007 12:13
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:02:54 + Vincent Fortier wrote:
Hi all,
I'm using a 2.6.22.14 + CFS v24 and I got theses errors
when starting
up my commvault galaxy client... Do
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:02:54 + Vincent Fortier wrote:
Hi all,
I'm using a 2.6.22.14 + CFS v24 and I got theses errors when starting up
my commvault galaxy client... Do anybody know what this could mean?
Can you provide a few lines of syslog before the Oops: line,
which should contain
Hi all,
I'm using a 2.6.22.14 + CFS v24 and I got theses errors when starting up
my commvault galaxy client... Do anybody know what this could mean?
Message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] at Fri Nov 30 12:54:57 2007 ...
printemps kernel: [750078.538268] Oops: [#1]
printemps kernel: [750078.538284]
90 matches
Mail list logo
