So I assume we wait on baited breathe for 2.4.2-pre4 or
branch off soon to 2.5 blah?
Frank
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read
Here is a complete trace of the Oops I have.
I have a new compiled kernel with NFSD in the kernel with vmlinux available
for it.
I attached the ksymoops and the gdb stuff
oops.orig : as found in /var/log/messages
oops.ksyms : output of ksymoops
oops.disassemble : output of "echo disassemble
Yes, I do...
Thanks for the hints, I've installed the older version, then upgraded to the
fixed version. Everything works now as before.
Jonathan Brugge
>From: David Raufeisen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: David Raufeisen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Jonathan Brugge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC:
>
> if you use an MUA that can't do filtering, well then there's something
> wrong with you
I really don't believe there is any need for this kind of attitude.
/Mike
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeremy Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Eric W. Biederman" wrote:
>
> > Jeremy Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > (about non-executable stack)
> >
> > There is another much more effective solution in the works. The C
> > standard allows bounds checking of arrays. So it is quite
Moderately-high (couple hundred thousand hits a day) loaded web server
running 2.4.1 (no other patches). I got this twice in the syslog after
15 days uptime:
KERNEL: assertion (tp->lost_out == 0) failed at tcp_input.c(1202):tcp_remove_reno_sacks
(between lots of "TCP: peer shrinks window
My last bug report did not seem to attract to much attention. But I'm
back and I have a even longer oops list. Last night our system crashed
(again). (Again) right after arkeia had started the nightly backup. But
this time the kernel oopses went through syslog. Here they are ran
through
"Eric W. Biederman" wrote:
>
> But the gcc bounds checking work is the ultimate buffer overflow fix.
> You can recompile all of your trusted applications, and libraries with
> it and be safe from one source of bugs.
>
void main(int argc, char **argv[])
{
char local[128];
if(argc
David Ford writes:
> "Michael J. Dikkema" wrote:
>
> > I went from 2.4.0 to 2.4.1 and was surprised that either the root
> > filesystem wasn't mounted, or it couldn't be read. I'm using devfs.. I'm
> > thinking there might have been a change with regards to the devfs
> > tree.. is the legacy
"Eric W. Biederman" wrote:
> Jeremy Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Eric W. Biederman" wrote
> No. I'm not talking about stack-guard patches. I'm talking about bounds checking.
Sorry, I was quite incoherent. Many others have pointed out that there exist
patches for
Dear Kernel People,
Recently I experienced a dos formatted floppy which, after mounting it
vfat and issuing the df command produced the kernel messages below.
The original part is several hundreds line long. The message stream
persisted after a shutdown. If one waits long enough, it will stop.
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Martin Rode wrote:
> My last bug report did not seem to attract to much attention.
> For now we have switched back to 2.2.18 which stays up for about
> a week before it crashes because of the VM too.
[snip]
> VM: reclaim_page, wrong page on list.
> VM: refill_inactive,
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > +int is_valid_ether_addr( char* address )
> > +{
> > +int i,isvalid=0;
> > +for( i=0; i<6; i++)
> > + isvalid |= address[i];
> > +return isvalid && !(address[0]&1);
> > +}
>
> static and why not
oops, I *meant* static... doesn't gcc do mind reading? ;)
> "Petr" == Petr Vandrovec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Petr> On 14 Feb 01 at 16:35, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>> What else is sending out 802.3 frames these days? I really don't
>> care about IPX when it comes to performance.
>>
>> I am just advocating that we optimize for the common case which
Diwakar Sharma wrote:
> I require linux tcp/ip stack implementation details for a project i am
> involved in .
> can somebody please point out an online documentation site for the same.
Not online, but "LINUX IP Stacks" by Satchell & Clifford from
CoriolisOpen Press may be helpful to you.
Eli
I've put up the following (white) papers out for general discussion:
-Adaptive Domain Environment for Operating Systems (Adeos)
-Building a Real-Time Operating System on top of the Adeos
The first paper discusses the design and implementation of a nano-kernel-
like facility that may be used to
Good day, Giacomo,
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
> How to use: (now, testing phase)
> unpack the files (better: in a new directory)
> > bash autoconfigure.sh | less
> check the output.
> no super user privileges required!
Nice work - that's a neat way to do it.
Hello, Keith!
You patch has been applied to 2.4.1ac13, but it doesn't help:
$ HPATH=. ../../scripts/mkdep -- names.c
names.o: names.c \
$(wildcard /home/proski/src/linux/drivers/pci/config/pci/names.h) \
/home/proski/src/linux/drivers/pci/devlist.h \
After building/playing around with some java apps on this version, something
seems to have gone weird with X or the kernel..
david@prototype:~$ ps aux | grep X
root 267 0.9 99.9 167640 4294965764 ? S< 06:50 1:11 /usr/bin/X11/X vt7
-auth /var/lib/gdm/:0.Xauth :0
System seems mostly
> Peter pointed out that the contents of the CSR12-14 registers are
> initialized from the EEPROM, so reading the EEPROM is superfluous--we
> should just read the CSRs and not read the EEPROM. I think he has a
> point, so I'll make that change and submit yet another patch pair.
I'd rather
William Stearns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|> Good day, Giacomo,
|>
|> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
|>
|> > How to use: (now, testing phase)
|> > unpack the files (better: in a new directory)
|> > > bash autoconfigure.sh | less
|> > check the output.
|> > no super
> After building/playing around with some java apps on this version, something
> seems to have gone weird with X or the kernel..
>
> david@prototype:~$ ps aux | grep X
> root 267 0.9 99.9 167640 4294965764 ? S< 06:50 1:11 /usr/bin/X11/X vt7
>-auth /var/lib/gdm/:0.Xauth :0
>
> System
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:49:22PM +1100, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> Now, the thing I don't understand about David's design is the
> final one. What 3c575_cb does is:
>
> CONFIG_HOTPLUG=y, MODULE=true
> If the hardware isn't there, register the driver and
> hang around.
>
>
Hello, respected Linux kernel developers,
I am currently a university student taking a "Advanced design of
Operating Systems" class at
New York University. We are reviewing some basic and studying a few
advanced issues with regards
to kernel design, mostly multithreading, scalability,
I must say, after I saw this post, I tried out the latest driver for my own
purposes.
This really improved the performance of my dual PIII-866 w/512MB Ram and
AIC7899 scsi.
I have a couple of cheetah drives that I am writing data that I get off of
an ATM card.(about 12-14 MB/sec rate).
This
I am still stuck on 2.2 because of this issue. I would really like to see
this driver in 2.4.2.
-Matt
> -Original Message-
> From: Nathan Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 9:20 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: aic7xxx (and sym53c8xx) plans
>
>I am still stuck on 2.2 because of this issue. I would really like to see
>this driver in 2.4.2.
Have you tested the 2.2.18 version of the new driver? The patches
should work on most 2.2.X kernels, I just haven't gotten around to
verifying that. The more testers, the merrier! :-)
--
Justin
-
All of my boxes with that card are on 2.2.16. The rest are on 2.4.1, so I
don't really have a need to test 2.2.18 as I would rather be on 2.4.x for
all of my boxes.
-Matt
> -Original Message-
> From: Justin T. Gibbs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 9:36 AM
>
> > After building/playing around with some java apps on this
> version, something
> > seems to have gone weird with X or the kernel..
> >
> > david@prototype:~$ ps aux | grep X
> > root 267 0.9 99.9 167640 4294965764 ? S< 06:50 1:11
> /usr/bin/X11/X vt7 -auth
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> Hello, Keith!
>
> You patch has been applied to 2.4.1ac13, but it doesn't help:
It's fixed in ac14. I ran twice
make depend && make clean && make bzImage && make modules
and it worked both times. Thanks!
Regards,
Pavel Roskin
-
To unsubscribe from
>All of my boxes with that card are on 2.2.16. The rest are on 2.4.1, so I
>don't really have a need to test 2.2.18 as I would rather be on 2.4.x for
>all of my boxes.
Well, I'll try and generate patches against 2.2.16 soon. I probably
need to support 2.2.14 too. There are already so many
What's the current status of the loop-# patch? Haven't seen anything
since loop-4, which doesn't apply clean to 2.4.1-ac14 (one hunk is
rejected in loop.c, many others apply with fuzz).
I am waiting in anticipation of the folding of this patch into the
mainline kernel.
IIRC, Jens said he was
[Added Linus and linux-kernel as I think it's of general interest]
Kanoj Sarcar wrote:
> Whether Jamie was trying to illustrate a different problem, I am not
> sure.
Yes, I was talking about pte_test_and_clear_dirty in the earlier post.
> Look in mm/mprotect.c. Look at the call sequence
Watch Microsoft's Jim Allchin go Linux-bashing!!!
Nice little article on how we're all going to die of herpes from our
repeated exposition to Linux...
http://news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html?ta
g=ltnc
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
Well, the situation is improving, I suppose ...
Under kernel 2.4.0 and 2.4.1, a dd of about 1 4k blocks would cause
the system to go technicolor and lock up.
Now, under 2.4.1-ac13, at about 11000 blocks, it goes technicolor, but
doesn't lock up until somewhere between 13000 and 2.
* fsnchzjr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Watch Microsoft's Jim Allchin go Linux-bashing!!!
> Nice little article on how we're all going to die of herpes from our
> repeated exposition to Linux...
> http://news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html?tag=ltnc
Just
>> repeated exposition to Linux...
Hey isn't that _exposure_ to Linux? Or one of Dubya's words? Like
strategery?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of fsnchzjr
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 12:49 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Linux
>
> [Added Linus and linux-kernel as I think it's of general interest]
>
> Kanoj Sarcar wrote:
> > Whether Jamie was trying to illustrate a different problem, I am not
> > sure.
>
> Yes, I was talking about pte_test_and_clear_dirty in the earlier post.
>
> > Look in mm/mprotect.c. Look at the
The fix in ac14 for the ac13 patch that killed the tulip driver doesn't
quite work either:
Feb 15 13:04:16 patience kernel: LDT allocated for cloned task!
Feb 15 13:04:55 patience kernel: NETDEV WATCHDOG: eth0: transmit timed
out
Feb 15 13:05:27 patience last message repeated 4 times
Feb 15
I'm trying to update some patches of Harald's to work
with the official 2.4.0 international patches. He had
a very nice unofficial patch set that doesn't use a
table, it just sees what is in /proc/crypto. I fixed
a few bugs and it worked marvelously with unofficial
test9 patches all the way up to
Hello!
> Kernel 2.4.x apparently disregards my ppp options MTU setting of 552
> and sets mss=536 (=> MTU=576).
Yes, default configuration is not allowed to advertise mss<536.
The limit is controlled via /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/min_adv_mss,
you can change it to 256.
Default of 536 is sadistic
Messages in my kernel log:
node1 kernel: sending pkt_too_big to self
node1 kernel: KERNEL: assertion (tp->lost_out == 0) failed at
tcp_input.c(1202):tcp_remove_reno_sacks
Kernel 2.4.1-ac13.
Maybe someone want to say me what does it mean and how serious it is?
Any fixes?
Thanks.
--
Andrius
>
> [Added Linus and linux-kernel as I think it's of general interest]
>
> Kanoj Sarcar wrote:
> > Whether Jamie was trying to illustrate a different problem, I am not
> > sure.
>
> Yes, I was talking about pte_test_and_clear_dirty in the earlier post.
>
> > Look in mm/mprotect.c. Look at the
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 06:33:36AM -0500, safemode wrote:
> > What's the nature of the VIA chipset problems? I want to get a new system
>
> There are no problems with 2.2.x.
I'm very glad to hear that because the AMD chips are the obvious
choice for a lot of people(all?).
> (classic), get the
Nathan Walp wrote:
>
> The fix in ac14 for the ac13 patch that killed the tulip driver doesn't
> quite work either:
>
I need more details:
does it immediately time out (after a few seconds), or a after a few
minutes.
Which network speed do you use? 100MBit half duplex?
Could you please run
Kanoj Sarcar wrote:
> > Here's the important part: when processor 2 wants to set the pte's dirty
> > bit, it *rereads* the pte and *rechecks* the permission bits again.
> > Even though it has a non-dirty TLB entry for that pte.
> >
> > That is how I read Ben LaHaise's description, and his test
> with bogus mtu values sort of 552 or even 296, but also jailed them
> to some proxy or masquearding domain), but it is still right: IP
> with mtu lower 576 is not full functional.
Please cite an exact RFC reference.
The 576 byte requirement is for reassembled packets handled by the host.
That
Kanoj Sarcar wrote:
>
> Okay, I will quote from Intel Architecture Software Developer's Manual
> Volume 3: System Programming Guide (1997 print), section 3.7, page 3-27:
>
> "Bus cycles to the page directory and page tables in memory are performed
> only when the TLBs do not contain the
To discover possible locking limitations to scalability, I have collected
locking statistics on a 2-way, 4-way, and 8-way performing as networked
database servers. I patched the [48]-way kernels with Kravetz's multiqueue
patch in the hope that mitigating runqueue_lock contention might better
>
> Kanoj Sarcar wrote:
> > > Here's the important part: when processor 2 wants to set the pte's dirty
> > > bit, it *rereads* the pte and *rechecks* the permission bits again.
> > > Even though it has a non-dirty TLB entry for that pte.
> > >
> > > That is how I read Ben LaHaise's description,
Hi
I have't seen any posts about this, maybe nobody haveing
problems? I can't boot ac13/ac14 on my machine. 2.4.1ac12 was ok.
Linux version 2.4.1-ac13 (root@singular) (gcc version 2.95.3 20010125
(prerelease)) #2 Thu Feb 15 02:23:31 CET 2001
BIOS-provided physical RAM map:
BIOS-e820:
Hey, just found this one out.
I've got a sony vaio 505tx, running linux-2.4.1-ac1, and I've got all
the good stuff turned.
With APM turned, and using USB uhci-alt driver (all as modules), if you
put the laptop to sleep with any (and I mean *any*) usb devices plugged
in, it will hard lock upon
Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Is the sequence
> << lock;
> read pte
> pte |= dirty
> write pte
> >> end lock;
> or
> << lock;
> read pte
> if (!present(pte))
> do_page_fault();
> pte |= dirty
> write pte.
> >> end lock;
or more generally
<< lock;
read pte
if (!present(pte) || !writable(pte))
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Kanoj Sarcar wrote:
> No. All architectures do not have this problem. For example, if the
> Linux "dirty" (not the pte dirty) bit is managed by software, a fault
> will actually be taken when processor 2 tries to do the write. The fault
> is solely to make sure that the
Manfred Spraul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Eric W. Biederman" wrote:
> >
> > But the gcc bounds checking work is the ultimate buffer overflow fix.
> > You can recompile all of your trusted applications, and libraries with
> > it and be safe from one source of bugs.
> >
>
> void main(int
>
> Kanoj Sarcar wrote:
> >
> > Okay, I will quote from Intel Architecture Software Developer's Manual
> > Volume 3: System Programming Guide (1997 print), section 3.7, page 3-27:
> >
> > "Bus cycles to the page directory and page tables in memory are performed
> > only when the TLBs do not
Alan Cox wrote:
> I'd rather keep the existing initialisation behaviour of using the eeprom
> for 2.2. There are also some power management cases where I am not sure
> the values are restored on the pcnet/pci.
>
> For 2.2 conservatism is the key. For 2.4 by all means default to CSR12-14 and
>
>
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Kanoj Sarcar wrote:
>
> > No. All architectures do not have this problem. For example, if the
> > Linux "dirty" (not the pte dirty) bit is managed by software, a fault
> > will actually be taken when processor 2 tries to do the write. The fault
> > is solely to make
Kanoj Sarcar wrote:
> > Is the sequence
> > << lock;
> > read pte
> > pte |= dirty
> > write pte
> > >> end lock;
> > or
> > << lock;
> > read pte
> > if (!present(pte))
> > do_page_fault();
> > pte |= dirty
> > write pte.
> > >> end lock;
>
> No, it is a little more complicated. You also
Hello!
> Please cite an exact RFC reference.
No need to cite RFC, this is plain sillogism.
A. Datagram protocols do not work with mtus not allowing to send
512 byte frames (even DNS).
B. Accoutning, classification, resource reervation does not work on
fragmented packets.
-> IP suite is
Hi!
I think that this is a bug. The buffer is always released except in this
case.
Bye.
*** /usr/src/linux-2.4.1/fs/ext2/namei.cTue Dec 12 16:48:22 2000
--- namei.c.new Thu Feb 15 20:42:45 2001
***
*** 235,240
---
http://linux24.sourceforge.net/ is a good place to start.
> I am not subscribed to the list yet, please CC to me your reply.
> Thank you very much,
You should be.
Also I suggest you read the lkml FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ . It should
give quite a few starting points.
-gabi
>
Hi,
I have a HP Pavilon 5290 laptop. It has a a mini-pci modem/ethernet combo
integrated card.
Searching in the Internet I found a patch for the ethernet to work with the
tulip driver for kernel 2.2.x series, However, I found no patch for the 2.4.x
kernel series, so I made one.
Here is what
Seriously though folks, look at who's doing this!
They've already tried once to sue 'Linux', were told they couldn't because
Linux is a non-entity (or at least one that they can not effectively sue
due to the classification Linux holds), and now they can't use their
second favorite tactic for
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 12:49:29PM -0500, John Jasen wrote:
>
> Well, the situation is improving, I suppose ...
>
> Under kernel 2.4.0 and 2.4.1, a dd of about 1 4k blocks would cause
> the system to go technicolor and lock up.
On UP1100 which I have here somehow this looks a bit different
Hello!
> Maybe someone want to say me what does it mean and how serious it is?
It means that debugging messages are still not disabled in 2.4.x 8)
> Any fixes?
These ones can be ignored.
Alexey
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, David D.W. Downey wrote:
> Seriously though folks, look at who's doing this!
>
> They've already tried once to sue 'Linux', were told they couldn't because
> Linux is a non-entity (or at least one that they can not effectively sue
> due to the classification Linux holds),
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
> > Well, the situation is improving, I suppose ...
> >
> > Under kernel 2.4.0 and 2.4.1, a dd of about 1 4k blocks would cause
> > the system to go technicolor and lock up.
>
> On UP1100 which I have here somehow this looks a bit different
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Kanoj Sarcar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Will you please go off and prove that this "problem" exists on some x86
>> processor before continuing this rant? None of the PII, PIII, Athlon,
>
>And will you please stop behaving like this is not an issue?
This
On 02.15 Justin T. Gibbs wrote:
> >All of my boxes with that card are on 2.2.16. The rest are on 2.4.1, so I
> >don't really have a need to test 2.2.18 as I would rather be on 2.4.x for
> >all of my boxes.
>
> Well, I'll try and generate patches against 2.2.16 soon. I probably
> need to
> Calibrating delay loop... 466.94 BogoMIPS
> Memory: 62836k/65536k available (712k kernel code, 2312k reserved, 188k
> data, 56k init, 0k highmem)
> Checking if this processor honours the WP bit even in supervisor mode...
>
> Here it freezes forever... My cpu:
>
> vendor_id : CyrixInstead
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Calibrating delay loop... 466.94 BogoMIPS
> > Memory: 62836k/65536k available (712k kernel code, 2312k reserved, 188k
> > data, 56k init, 0k highmem)
> > Checking if this processor honours the WP bit even in supervisor mode...
> >
> > Here it freezes
> A. Datagram protocols do not work with mtus not allowing to send
>512 byte frames (even DNS).
I ran DNS reliably over AX.25 networks. They have an MTU of 216. They work.
Please explain your claim in more detail. Please explain why the real world
is violating your version of the laws of
According to J . A . Magallon:
> Please, I think it would be much more useful a patch against the latest
> 2.2.19-pre (if that one for 2.2.18 does not work, I have not tried)
> and the latest 2.4.1-ac14, that is what people experiments with.
There's no end of versions that people use.
Might I
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > Peter pointed out that the contents of the CSR12-14 registers are
> > initialized from the EEPROM, so reading the EEPROM is superfluous--we
> > should just read the CSRs and not read the EEPROM. I think he has a
> > point, so I'll make that change and submit yet another
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jamie Lokier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > << lock;
>> > read pte
>> > if (!present(pte))
>> >do_page_fault();
>> > pte |= dirty
>> > write pte.
>> > >> end lock;
>>
>> No, it is a little more complicated. You also have to include in the
>> tlb state into
Hi all,
How it's the support of ATA100 in the linux kernel? Do I need to use 2.4
to get full speed or is enough to configure the drive with hdparm? When i
use hdparm several modes supported appear. Is udma5 equivalent to the
standard ATA100 ? And sorry if my questions are maybe too simple for
> I haven't tried 2.4.1-ac13 on that machine yet, but I did attempt to boot
> 2.4.1-ac13 on an Winchip-C6 machine. It froze at the same place, i.e.
> "Checking if this processor honours the WP bit even in supervisor
> mode...". 2.4.1-ac12 works quite nicely on this machine, although I still
hey, I found this driver on mandrake kernel sources, it's ac3, but I
need ac14 code, also, why still not port this driver into kernel?
the patch file already released 1 years ago
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:40:28 +0100
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: USB mass storage and USB message
I'm using the usb-uhci core with the 8200e storage drivers. I don't why
the kernel logs the next message:
> Default of 536 is sadistic (and apaprently will be changed eventually
> to stop tears of poor people whose providers not only supply them
> with bogus mtu values sort of 552 or even 296, but also jailed them
> to some proxy or masquearding domain), but it is still right: IP
> with mtu lower 576
Hello!
> I ran DNS reliably over AX.25 networks. They have an MTU of 216. They work.
Please, Alan, distinguish two things: "works" and "works, until
I ask X". The second is equal to "does not".
512 is maximal message size, which is transmitted without troubles,
hardwired to almost all the
"I'm an American, I believe in the American Way, I worry if the
government encourages open source, and I don't think we've done
enough education of policy makers to understand the threat."
He believes in the "Golden Rule" too...
Can you say "NSA" or "Secure Linux"?
I believe they are truly
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Alan Olsen wrote:
> I expect the next thing that will happen is that they will get patents on
> key portions of their protocols and then start enforcing them.
>
They can only patent their own creations. I'd like to see them try to get
patents for their "extensions" to TCP
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 03:15:01PM -0500, John Jasen wrote:
>
> I retried the mysticism and incantations (d -l 801feac d) at the srm
> prompt, and the machine locked on fsck, under kernel 2.4.1-ac13.
Like I wrote - I did not get to locks on fsck but then stuff was weird
and if I would press
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm using the usb-uhci core with the 8200e storage drivers. I don't why
> the kernel logs the next message:
>
> uhci.c: root-hub INT complete: port1: 495 port2: 58a data: 4
> uhci.c: root-hub INT complete: port1: 495
Rick Jones wrote:
>
> > Default of 536 is sadistic (and apaprently will be changed eventually
> > to stop tears of poor people whose providers not only supply them
> > with bogus mtu values sort of 552 or even 296, but also jailed them
> > to some proxy or masquearding domain), but it is still
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
> Like I wrote - I did not get to locks on fsck but then stuff was weird
> and if I would press sufficiently long maybe I would. I still had some
> use for my file systems so I did not try hard enough. Maybe we need
> black hens on the top of the
> > I ran DNS reliably over AX.25 networks. They have an MTU of 216. They work.
>
> 512 is maximal message size, which is transmitted without troubles,
> hardwired to almost all the datagram protocols.
Message size != MTU. DNS doesnt use DF. In fact DNS can even fall back to
TCP.
> > > B.
Update on the "unregister_netdevice" bug ...
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo has been valiantly trying in his
scarce free time to find the cause. I haven't been able to
hunt effectively because I don't really understand the networking
code; however I have been experimenting to see what are the
exact
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> "I'm an American, I believe in the American Way, I worry if the
> government encourages open source, and I don't think we've done
> enough education of policy makers to understand the threat."
>
It is not American to steal. The first "Flight
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Jamie Lokier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > << lock;
> >> > read pte
> >> > if (!present(pte))
> >> >do_page_fault();
> >> > pte |= dirty
> >> > write pte.
> >> > >> end lock;
> >>
> >> No, it is a little more complicated. You
Manfred Spraul wrote:
>
> I just benchmarked a single flush_tlb_page().
>
> Pentium II 350: ~ 2000 cpu ticks.
> Pentium III 850: ~ 3000 cpu ticks.
>
I forgot the important part:
SMP, including a smp_call_function() IPI.
IIRC Ingo wrote that a local 'invplg' is around 100 ticks.
--
anyone know how?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Hi,
On 15-Feb-01 Thomas Lau wrote:
> hey, I found this driver on mandrake kernel sources, it's ac3, but I
> need ac14 code, also, why still not port this driver into kernel?
> the patch file already released 1 years ago
Have you checked http://www.garloff.de/kurt/linux/dc395/index.html
there ist
This is mostly again to make sure everyone is in sync across the various
ports and those that are fully merged all compile.
Alan
2.2.19pre13
o Fix up missing bits of Soohoon Lee's exec patch (Michael Jaegerman)
| not sure where some bits of it escaped too...
o Revert serial
it's final version, but why it's not work ?
diff -urN linux-2.4.1-p8-pristine/Documentation/Configure.help
linux-2.4.1-p8/Documentation/Configure.help
--- linux-2.4.1-p8-pristine/Documentation/Configure.helpThu Jan 18 01:20:48
2001
+++ linux-2.4.1-p8/Documentation/Configure.help Thu
David Hinds wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:49:22PM +1100, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > Now, the thing I don't understand about David's design is the
> > final one. What 3c575_cb does is:
> >
> > CONFIG_HOTPLUG=y, MODULE=true
> > If the hardware isn't there, register the driver
Also sprach Alan Olsen:
} I expect the next thing that will happen is that they will get patents on
} key portions of their protocols and then start enforcing them.
}
Which protocols would that be? TCP/IP wasn't invented by them.
} I wonder what kind of law they will try to push to outlaw Open
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Bill Wendling wrote:
> With the horrid (pro-Microsoft) Aschroft in office, who knows what MS
> can get away with. Not to mention all of the pro-business, anti-human
> cronies in Washington running the Presidency (cause \/\/ just can't do
> it).
Most of the pro-business
201 - 300 of 332 matches
Mail list logo
