On 3/29/07, Ed Sweetman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
NVRM: loading NVIDIA UNIX x86_64 Kernel Module 1.0-9746 Fri Dec 15 10:19:35
PST 2006
PCI: Setting latency timer of device :01:00.0 to 64
NVRM: loading NVIDIA UNIX x86_64 Kernel Module 1.0-9746 Fri Dec 15 10:19:35
PST 2006
**WARNING**
On 3/29/07, Ed Sweetman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NVRM: loading NVIDIA UNIX x86_64 Kernel Module 1.0-9746 Fri Dec 15 10:19:35
PST 2006
PCI: Setting latency timer of device :01:00.0 to 64
NVRM: loading NVIDIA UNIX x86_64 Kernel Module 1.0-9746 Fri Dec 15 10:19:35
PST 2006
**WARNING** I2C
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 03:26:35 +0200,
Eric Rannaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The reason for that original patch was that it is actually possible for the
> uevent functions to return -ENOMEM, the uevent buffer being statically
> allocated to BUFFER_SIZE (2048).
So maybe -ENOMEM should still be
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 03:26:35 +0200,
Eric Rannaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The reason for that original patch was that it is actually possible for the
uevent functions to return -ENOMEM, the uevent buffer being statically
allocated to BUFFER_SIZE (2048).
So maybe -ENOMEM should still be
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 07:17:49PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:25:57 +0200,
> "Kay Sievers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Checking the uevent return value, will not prevent any malfunction,
> > usually this kind of "error handling" just prevents bringing up a
> > whole
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:25:57 +0200,
"Kay Sievers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't see any point in deregistering a kernel device, if the event
> to userspace goes wrong, or a subsytem returns a non-zero value in the
> filter.
But if we filter the event, we just return 0?
> Checking the
On 3/26/07, Eric Rannaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 01:22:32AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:09:49 +0200 Cornelia Huck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If so, do you think I should labour on with
> > >
On 3/26/07, Eric Rannaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 01:22:32AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:09:49 +0200 Cornelia Huck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If so, do you think I should labour on with
uevent-improve-error-checking-and-handling.patch plus your
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:25:57 +0200,
Kay Sievers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see any point in deregistering a kernel device, if the event
to userspace goes wrong, or a subsytem returns a non-zero value in the
filter.
But if we filter the event, we just return 0?
Checking the uevent
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 07:17:49PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:25:57 +0200,
Kay Sievers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Checking the uevent return value, will not prevent any malfunction,
usually this kind of error handling just prevents bringing up a
whole subsystem, or
Badari Pulavarty writes:
> Patch causing the problem in -mm:
> ibmebus-uevent-support.patch
>
> I don't see where $,1rx(Bof_device_uevent$,1ry(B is defined :(
That patch depends on another one from Sylvain Munaut that I haven't
yet managed to get Ben H. to express an opinion on, and
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 09:35:48PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
>
> Greg, please update your copy with this version of the patch. The only
> change is that sound/ppc/beep.c is removed from the patch.
Done.
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"
On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 15:22 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
..
> > Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0020
> > RIP:
> > [] __sched_text_start+0x460/0x889
> > PGD 1c1898067 PUD 1c1897067 PMD 0
> > Oops: [1] SMP
> > last sysfs file: block/hda/range
> > CPU 3
> >
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:57:57 -0800
Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 20:56 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Temporarily at
> >
> > http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
> >
> > Will appear later at
> >
> >
> >
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 20:56 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Temporarily at
>
> http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
>
> Will appear later at
>
>
> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.21-rc4/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
>
Panics my x86-64 box. 2.6.21-rc4 works
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:27:09 +0100, "J.A. Magallón" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:56:23 -0800, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Temporarily at
> >
> > http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
> >
> > Will appear later at
> >
> >
> >
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:01:52 +0900, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> J.A. Magallón wrote:
> > Libata seems to misdetect my cable.
> > I have double-checked and the cable is 80 pin...
>
> Does the following patch fix your problem?
>
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ide/17444
>
>
Hi Badari,
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:05:56 -0800, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 20:56 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Temporarily at
> >
> > http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
> >
> > Will appear later at
> >
> >
> >
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 20:56 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Temporarily at
>
> http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
>
> Will appear later at
>
>
> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.21-rc4/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
# make -j8 modules
CHK
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 20:56 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Temporarily at
>
> http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
>
> Will appear later at
>
>
> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.21-rc4/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
>
CC arch/powerpc/kernel/ibmebus.o
J.A. Magallón wrote:
> Libata seems to misdetect my cable.
> I have double-checked and the cable is 80 pin...
Does the following patch fix your problem?
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ide/17444
(You can get the raw message by appending /raw to the URL).
--
tejun
-
To unsubscribe from
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:34:33 +0200 Eric Rannaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 01:22:32AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:09:49 +0200 Cornelia Huck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > If so, do you think I should labour on with
> > > >
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 01:22:32AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:09:49 +0200 Cornelia Huck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If so, do you think I should labour on with
> > > uevent-improve-error-checking-and-handling.patch plus your fix, or should
> > > I
> > > drop the
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:09:49 +0200 Cornelia Huck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 21:06:18 -0800,
> Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Would I be right in guessing that this was all triggered by
> > uevent-improve-error-checking-and-handling.patch?
>
> Looks like it,
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 21:06:18 -0800,
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would I be right in guessing that this was all triggered by
> uevent-improve-error-checking-and-handling.patch?
Looks like it, since it passed the uevent failures to the upper layer.
> If so, do you think I should
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 21:06:18 -0800,
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would I be right in guessing that this was all triggered by
uevent-improve-error-checking-and-handling.patch?
Looks like it, since it passed the uevent failures to the upper layer.
If so, do you think I should labour
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:09:49 +0200 Cornelia Huck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 21:06:18 -0800,
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would I be right in guessing that this was all triggered by
uevent-improve-error-checking-and-handling.patch?
Looks like it, since it
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 01:22:32AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:09:49 +0200 Cornelia Huck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If so, do you think I should labour on with
uevent-improve-error-checking-and-handling.patch plus your fix, or should
I
drop the lot? (I'm
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:34:33 +0200 Eric Rannaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 01:22:32AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:09:49 +0200 Cornelia Huck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If so, do you think I should labour on with
J.A. Magallón wrote:
Libata seems to misdetect my cable.
I have double-checked and the cable is 80 pin...
Does the following patch fix your problem?
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ide/17444
(You can get the raw message by appending /raw to the URL).
--
tejun
-
To unsubscribe from
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 20:56 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Temporarily at
http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
Will appear later at
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.21-rc4/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
CC arch/powerpc/kernel/ibmebus.o
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 20:56 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Temporarily at
http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
Will appear later at
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.21-rc4/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
# make -j8 modules
CHK
Hi Badari,
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:05:56 -0800, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 20:56 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Temporarily at
http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
Will appear later at
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:27:09 +0100, J.A. Magallón [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:56:23 -0800, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Temporarily at
http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
Will appear later at
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 20:56 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Temporarily at
http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
Will appear later at
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.21-rc4/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
Panics my x86-64 box. 2.6.21-rc4 works fine.
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:01:52 +0900, Tejun Heo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
J.A. Magallón wrote:
Libata seems to misdetect my cable.
I have double-checked and the cable is 80 pin...
Does the following patch fix your problem?
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ide/17444
(You can get
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:57:57 -0800
Badari Pulavarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 20:56 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Temporarily at
http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
Will appear later at
On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 15:22 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
..
Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0020
RIP:
[804ec090] __sched_text_start+0x460/0x889
PGD 1c1898067 PUD 1c1897067 PMD 0
Oops: [1] SMP
last sysfs file: block/hda/range
CPU 3
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 09:35:48PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
Greg, please update your copy with this version of the patch. The only
change is that sound/ppc/beep.c is removed from the patch.
Done.
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
Badari Pulavarty writes:
Patch causing the problem in -mm:
ibmebus-uevent-support.patch
I don't see where $,1rx(Bof_device_uevent$,1ry(B is defined :(
That patch depends on another one from Sylvain Munaut that I haven't
yet managed to get Ben H. to express an opinion on, and which
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:56:23 -0800, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Temporarily at
>
> http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
>
Libata seems to misdetect my cable.
I have double-checked and the cable is 80 pin...
ata1 is PATA ICH5 bus 1 with DVD-RW + ZIP and 40 pin
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:56:23 -0800, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Temporarily at
http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
Libata seems to misdetect my cable.
I have double-checked and the cable is 80 pin...
ata1 is PATA ICH5 bus 1 with DVD-RW + ZIP and 40 pin cable
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 11:39:17PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:22:25 -0500 Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > With the latest -mm, I'm now getting this:
> >
> > Mar 21 15:06:52 cinder kernel: ipw2200: Detected Intel PRO/Wireless
> > 2200BG Network Connection
>
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 11:39:17PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:22:25 -0500 Matt Mackall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With the latest -mm, I'm now getting this:
Mar 21 15:06:52 cinder kernel: ipw2200: Detected Intel PRO/Wireless
2200BG Network Connection
Mar 21
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 11:10:29 +0100 Cornelia Huck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:55:51 -0500,
> Larry Finger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:23:06 -0500,
> > >
> > > This would indicate that dev_uevent had been called. But
Zan Lynx wrote:
>
> It may have partly been a problem of having half of softmac and half
> devicescape. I'm not entirely sure what udev did.
>
> I tried a patch for the Sonic Silicon that was posted and I turned off
> all the configuration for the softmac driver.
>
> It isn't crashing right
On Friday 23 March 2007 23:28, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > Con Kolivas wrote:
> >> On Friday 23 March 2007 05:17, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> >>> Ok, I have yet a third x86_64 machine is is blowing up with the latest
> >>> 2.6.21-rc4-mm1+hotfixes+rsdl-0.32 but working with
> >>>
On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 11:13 -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:23:54 -0600 Zan Lynx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> First impressions:
> >> Several of the same bugs as rc3-mm*:
> >> * Freezes immediately if I touch the wlan0 device after loading
> >>
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 09:54:29PM +0900, Yasunori Goto wrote:
> Hello.
>
> > > WARNING: mm/built-in.o - Section mismatch: reference to
> > > .init.text:__alloc_bootmem_node from .text between 'sparse_init' (at
> > > offset 0x15c8f) and '__section_nr'
> > I took a look at this one.
> > You have
>
> Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > Con Kolivas wrote:
> >> On Friday 23 March 2007 05:17, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> >>> Ok, I have yet a third x86_64 machine is is blowing up with the
> >>> latest
> >>> 2.6.21-rc4-mm1+hotfixes+rsdl-0.32 but working with
> >>> 2.6.21-rc4-mm1+hotfixes-RSDL. I have
Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:55:51 -0500,
> Larry Finger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I applied the debug patch, but I don't see any error codes being returned.
>> This time I also got the
>> General Protection Faults. An excerpt of the log is attached.
>
> Hm, I think I have
Hello.
> > WARNING: mm/built-in.o - Section mismatch: reference to
> > .init.text:__alloc_bootmem_node from .text between 'sparse_init' (at
> > offset 0x15c8f) and '__section_nr'
> I took a look at this one.
> You have SPARSEMEM enabled in your config.
> And then I see that in sparse.c we call
Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
>> On Friday 23 March 2007 05:17, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>>> Ok, I have yet a third x86_64 machine is is blowing up with the latest
>>> 2.6.21-rc4-mm1+hotfixes+rsdl-0.32 but working with
>>> 2.6.21-rc4-mm1+hotfixes-RSDL. I have results on various hotfix
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:55:51 -0500,
Larry Finger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:23:06 -0500,
> >
> > This would indicate that dev_uevent had been called. But how could
> > kobject_uevent then return an error without moaning about an uevent()
> >
Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Friday 23 March 2007 05:17, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>> Ok, I have yet a third x86_64 machine is is blowing up with the latest
>> 2.6.21-rc4-mm1+hotfixes+rsdl-0.32 but working with
>> 2.6.21-rc4-mm1+hotfixes-RSDL. I have results on various hotfix levels
>> so I have just
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Friday 23 March 2007 05:17, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
Ok, I have yet a third x86_64 machine is is blowing up with the latest
2.6.21-rc4-mm1+hotfixes+rsdl-0.32 but working with
2.6.21-rc4-mm1+hotfixes-RSDL. I have results on various hotfix levels
so I have just fired off a
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:55:51 -0500,
Larry Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:23:06 -0500,
This would indicate that dev_uevent had been called. But how could
kobject_uevent then return an error without moaning about an uevent()
error code? Maybe
Andy Whitcroft wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Friday 23 March 2007 05:17, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
Ok, I have yet a third x86_64 machine is is blowing up with the latest
2.6.21-rc4-mm1+hotfixes+rsdl-0.32 but working with
2.6.21-rc4-mm1+hotfixes-RSDL. I have results on various hotfix levels
so I
Hello.
WARNING: mm/built-in.o - Section mismatch: reference to
.init.text:__alloc_bootmem_node from .text between 'sparse_init' (at
offset 0x15c8f) and '__section_nr'
I took a look at this one.
You have SPARSEMEM enabled in your config.
And then I see that in sparse.c we call
Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:55:51 -0500,
Larry Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I applied the debug patch, but I don't see any error codes being returned.
This time I also got the
General Protection Faults. An excerpt of the log is attached.
Hm, I think I have an idea about
Andy Whitcroft wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Friday 23 March 2007 05:17, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
Ok, I have yet a third x86_64 machine is is blowing up with the
latest
2.6.21-rc4-mm1+hotfixes+rsdl-0.32 but working with
2.6.21-rc4-mm1+hotfixes-RSDL. I have results on various hotfix
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 09:54:29PM +0900, Yasunori Goto wrote:
Hello.
WARNING: mm/built-in.o - Section mismatch: reference to
.init.text:__alloc_bootmem_node from .text between 'sparse_init' (at
offset 0x15c8f) and '__section_nr'
I took a look at this one.
You have SPARSEMEM
On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 11:13 -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:23:54 -0600 Zan Lynx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First impressions:
Several of the same bugs as rc3-mm*:
* Freezes immediately if I touch the wlan0 device after loading
the new
On Friday 23 March 2007 23:28, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
Andy Whitcroft wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Friday 23 March 2007 05:17, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
Ok, I have yet a third x86_64 machine is is blowing up with the latest
2.6.21-rc4-mm1+hotfixes+rsdl-0.32 but working with
Zan Lynx wrote:
It may have partly been a problem of having half of softmac and half
devicescape. I'm not entirely sure what udev did.
I tried a patch for the Sonic Silicon that was posted and I turned off
all the configuration for the softmac driver.
It isn't crashing right now but
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 11:10:29 +0100 Cornelia Huck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:55:51 -0500,
Larry Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:23:06 -0500,
This would indicate that dev_uevent had been called. But how could
On Friday 23 March 2007 05:17, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> Ok, I have yet a third x86_64 machine is is blowing up with the latest
> 2.6.21-rc4-mm1+hotfixes+rsdl-0.32 but working with
> 2.6.21-rc4-mm1+hotfixes-RSDL. I have results on various hotfix levels
> so I have just fired off a set of tests
Please always do reply-to-all.
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:27:09 +0100 "J.A. Magallón" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:56:23 -0800, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Temporarily at
> >
> > http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
> >
> > Will appear
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:56:23 -0800, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Temporarily at
>
> http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
>
> Will appear later at
>
>
> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.21-rc4/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
>
Is anybody
On Friday 23 March 2007 05:17, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > Con Kolivas wrote:
> >> On Thursday 22 March 2007 20:48, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> >>> Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> Temporarily at
> >>
> >>
Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:23:06 -0500,
>
> This would indicate that dev_uevent had been called. But how could
> kobject_uevent then return an error without moaning about an uevent()
> error code? Maybe the following debug patch could shed some light on
> this (all moaning is
Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
>> On Thursday 22 March 2007 20:48, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>>> Andy Whitcroft wrote:
Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>> Temporarily at
>>
>> http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
>>
>> Will appear later
Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Thursday 22 March 2007 20:48, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>> Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>>> Andy Whitcroft wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Temporarily at
>
> http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
>
> Will appear later at
>
>
>
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:23:06 -0500,
Larry Finger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:39:17 -0800,
> > Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:22:25 -0500 Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> With the latest
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 04:25:53PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 12:41 +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > Yep - realized this when I took a closer look.
> > One thing striked my mind. It is correct that new things gets added
> > to i386 first these days?
>
> Personally I tend
On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 12:41 +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> Yep - realized this when I took a closer look.
> One thing striked my mind. It is correct that new things gets added
> to i386 first these days?
Personally I tend to do PowerPC first, but most others seem to do i386,
yes. There are still
I cannot reproduce the BUG with your ml.bz2 patch applied.
I am seeing this with both 2.6.21-rc4-mm1 + hotfixes, and with
2.6.21-rc4 + ml.bz2:
Mar 22 09:10:35 FractalPath kernel: ACPI: CPU0 (power states: C1[C1]
C2[C2] C3[C3])
Mar 22 09:10:35 FractalPath kernel: The kobject at, or inside
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 09:17:00AM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 12:59 +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > I will give it a shot tonight.
>
> Thanks. I'll delete the syscalls-2.6.git tree now that you have it.
>
> > One issue I have with current approach is that the ARCH
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:39:17 -0800,
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:22:25 -0500 Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > With the latest -mm, I'm now getting this:
> >
> > Mar 21 15:06:52 cinder kernel: ipw2200: Detected Intel PRO/Wireless
> > 2200BG
On Thursday 22 March 2007 20:48, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> >> Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>> Temporarily at
> >>>
> >>> http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
> >>>
> >>> Will appear later at
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>> Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> Temporarily at
>>>
>>> http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
>>>
>>> Will appear later at
>>>
>>>
>>> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.21-rc4/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 01:14:41 -0700 "Miles Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I still encounter the BUG with the reverted patch. In these two
> builds hitting the BUG, more stuff is built as a module, so perhaps
> that is why I am triggering this. I am appending my .config file.
>
> I hope this
On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 12:59 +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> I will give it a shot tonight.
Thanks. I'll delete the syscalls-2.6.git tree now that you have it.
> One issue I have with current approach is that the ARCH specific
> things are in a single .h file.
Que? There aren't really any
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 04:01:11PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:19:05 +0100
> Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 09:47:14PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:20:16 -0700 Kees Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
>
Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>> Temporarily at
>>
>> http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
>>
>> Will appear later at
>>
>>
>> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.21-rc4/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
>>
>>
>>
>
> [All of the below is from the pre
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:29:54 -0700 "Miles Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> kobject :01:06.0: cleaning up
> kobject firmware: cleaning up
> BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 6b6b6ceb
> printing eip:
> c0137c22
> *pde =
> Oops: 0002 [#1]
> last sysfs
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:22:25 -0500 Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With the latest -mm, I'm now getting this:
>
> Mar 21 15:06:52 cinder kernel: ipw2200: Detected Intel PRO/Wireless
> 2200BG Network Connection
> Mar 21 15:06:52 cinder kernel: firmware_loading_store: unexpected
> value
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:22:25 -0500 Matt Mackall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With the latest -mm, I'm now getting this:
Mar 21 15:06:52 cinder kernel: ipw2200: Detected Intel PRO/Wireless
2200BG Network Connection
Mar 21 15:06:52 cinder kernel: firmware_loading_store: unexpected
value (0)
Mar
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:29:54 -0700 Miles Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
kobject :01:06.0: cleaning up
kobject firmware: cleaning up
BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 6b6b6ceb
printing eip:
c0137c22
*pde =
Oops: 0002 [#1]
last sysfs file:
Andy Whitcroft wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
Temporarily at
http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
Will appear later at
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.21-rc4/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
[All of the below is from the pre hot-fix runs. The very few
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 04:01:11PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:19:05 +0100
Sam Ravnborg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 09:47:14PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:20:16 -0700 Kees Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't
On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 12:59 +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
I will give it a shot tonight.
Thanks. I'll delete the syscalls-2.6.git tree now that you have it.
One issue I have with current approach is that the ARCH specific
things are in a single .h file.
Que? There aren't really any
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 01:14:41 -0700 Miles Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still encounter the BUG with the reverted patch. In these two
builds hitting the BUG, more stuff is built as a module, so perhaps
that is why I am triggering this. I am appending my .config file.
I hope this helps,
Andy Whitcroft wrote:
Andy Whitcroft wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
Temporarily at
http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
Will appear later at
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.21-rc4/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
[All of the below is from the pre hot-fix
On Thursday 22 March 2007 20:48, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
Andy Whitcroft wrote:
Andy Whitcroft wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
Temporarily at
http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/2.6.21-rc4-mm1/
Will appear later at
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:39:17 -0800,
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:22:25 -0500 Matt Mackall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With the latest -mm, I'm now getting this:
Mar 21 15:06:52 cinder kernel: ipw2200: Detected Intel PRO/Wireless
2200BG Network Connection
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 09:17:00AM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 12:59 +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
I will give it a shot tonight.
Thanks. I'll delete the syscalls-2.6.git tree now that you have it.
One issue I have with current approach is that the ARCH specific
I cannot reproduce the BUG with your ml.bz2 patch applied.
I am seeing this with both 2.6.21-rc4-mm1 + hotfixes, and with
2.6.21-rc4 + ml.bz2:
Mar 22 09:10:35 FractalPath kernel: ACPI: CPU0 (power states: C1[C1]
C2[C2] C3[C3])
Mar 22 09:10:35 FractalPath kernel: The kobject at, or inside
On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 12:41 +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
Yep - realized this when I took a closer look.
One thing striked my mind. It is correct that new things gets added
to i386 first these days?
Personally I tend to do PowerPC first, but most others seem to do i386,
yes. There are still
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 04:25:53PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 12:41 +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
Yep - realized this when I took a closer look.
One thing striked my mind. It is correct that new things gets added
to i386 first these days?
Personally I tend to do
1 - 100 of 209 matches
Mail list logo
