Re: The ext3 way of journalling

On 2008-01-13 18:11 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > It's much more likely that this early in your boot cycle, your clock is > sometimes incorrect. I doubt it. I get this nearly _always_ when the system crashes, which accounts for the vast majority of the times I boot it. (I wish swsusp didn't suck so

Re: [RFC, PATCH] watchdog on gpio

On Friday 11 January 2008, Florian Fainelli wrote: > Hello Marc, > > Your patch looks good to me, and I have been waiting for something like > this :). Other comments below. > > Le jeudi 10 janvier 2008, Marc Pignat a écrit : > > +#include > > +#include > > At first sight, this will only work

Re: [patch] block: fix blktrace timestamps

* Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Fact: feature CONFIG_CPU_IDLE=y did not exist in 64-bit x86 in v2.6.23. > > It has known bugs but they are not flagged 'regressions' (because the > > feature did not exist before and the option is default-disabled) hence > > the feature can st

Re: [PATCH] CRIS v10: Correct do_signal to fix oops and clean up signal handling in general.

On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 03:45:13PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:59:24 +0100 > Jesper Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > CRIS v10: Correct do_signal to fix oops and clean up signal handling in > > general. > > > > This fixes a kernel panic on boot due to do_signal no

Re: [PATCH] Fix kprobes on ia64

On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 07:24:24PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > If CONFIG_KPROBES is set, we get the error during build: > > kernel/kprobes.c:1057: error: __ksymtab_jprobe_return causes a section > type conflict > > This is because ia64 defines a static inline jprobe_return which kprobes > atte

<    1   2   3