Michal Piotrowski wrote:
On 11/09/2007, Chris Friesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We're running a modified 2.6.10 on a dual-Xeon system.
Eh, this is a pretty ancient kernel.
Yes, it is.
You may want to use one of the long time support kernel 2.6.16.x or 2.6.20.x.
I wish I could, but
Hi Chris,
On 11/09/2007, Chris Friesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> We're running a modified 2.6.10 on a dual-Xeon system. We've had a
> number of instances where we've seen oopses in the pipe code. I've
> included the most recent one below. This bug left us with a hung
> process
Hi Chris,
On 11/09/2007, Chris Friesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
We're running a modified 2.6.10 on a dual-Xeon system. We've had a
number of instances where we've seen oopses in the pipe code. I've
included the most recent one below. This bug left us with a hung
process as the
Michal Piotrowski wrote:
On 11/09/2007, Chris Friesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We're running a modified 2.6.10 on a dual-Xeon system.
Eh, this is a pretty ancient kernel.
Yes, it is.
You may want to use one of the long time support kernel 2.6.16.x or 2.6.20.x.
I wish I could, but
Hi all,
We're running a modified 2.6.10 on a dual-Xeon system. We've had a
number of instances where we've seen oopses in the pipe code. I've
included the most recent one below. This bug left us with a hung
process as the pipe code bailed out while pipe_writev() was holding a
sema, and
Hi all,
We're running a modified 2.6.10 on a dual-Xeon system. We've had a
number of instances where we've seen oopses in the pipe code. I've
included the most recent one below. This bug left us with a hung
process as the pipe code bailed out while pipe_writev() was holding a
sema, and
6 matches
Mail list logo
