* copy_from_user() can fail; ->write() must check its return
value.
* severe buffer overruns both in ->read() and ->write() - lseek
to the end (i.e. to mmapper_size) and
if(count + *ppos > mmapper_size)
count = count + *ppos - mmapper_size;
will do
Em Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 09:06:22PM -0700, Mitchell Blank Jr escreveu:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> > - it doesn't seem to help that much on modern CPUs with good
> > branch prediction and big icaches anyways.
>
> Really? I would think that as pipelines get deeper (although that trend
> seems to have
Em Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 07:37:59PM -0400, Robert Love escreveu:
> On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 17:44 -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>
> > Is this function used in a hot path to warrant using "unlikely"? There
> > are to many "unlikely" in the code for my taste.
>
> unlikely() can result in better,
Hi there.
I just got myself a new USB mouse and it seems that kernel
2.6.13-rc6-mm2 (which is the kernel I am using right now) doesn't like
it.
I get an Oops (attached to this message) and it suddenly stops
working. I still don't know if this is reproducible or if it occurs
with other kernels.
On Aug 25 2005, at 16:04, Erik Mouw was caught saying:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 10:08:13PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > I really wanted to release a 2.6.13, but there's been enough changes
> > while we've been waiting for other issues to resolve that I think it's
> > best to do a -rc7
On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 03:21:27AM +, Kent Robotti wrote:
> The purpose of the patch is to overmount ramfs/rootfs with tmpfs before
> the compressed cpio archive is unpacked and /init is run.
yes and no
there are people who want the overmount even without cpio
decompression
> But, it's
Andi Kleen wrote:
> - it doesn't seem to help that much on modern CPUs with good
> branch prediction and big icaches anyways.
Really? I would think that as pipelines get deeper (although that trend
seems to have stopped, thankfully) and Icache-miss penalties get relatively
larger we'd see
This patch fixes a bug in the capifs initialization code, where the
filesystem is not unregistered if kern_mount() fails.
Please apply.
Signed-off-by: James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
capifs.c |4 +++-
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff -purN -X dontdiff
Richard Henderson wrote:
> Because I use "extern inline" in the proper way. That is, I have both
> inline and out-of-line versions of some routines.
Is there any reason not to just make the out-of-line version explicit?
i.e.:
/* in some .h file: */
static /*(always!)*/inline int
Hello,
It crashes for me right off the bat:
Here is the kernel output:
---
Filesystem type is ext2fs, partition type 0x83
kernel /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.13-rc7-git1 root=/dev/hda3 ro console=ttyS0,115200n8
CONSOLE=/dev/ttyS0
[Linux-bzImage, setup=0x1200, size=0x1fe4fa]
savedefault
boot
Linux
Greetings,
I am having problems with DMA access on my laptops drives. My research so far
indicates that this is likely to be an issue with the current state of ahci
development.
There are no BIOS options available for the IDE that are suggested in
workarounds.
Is there anything I can do to
On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 05:40:45PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 09:12:31PM +, Kent Robotti wrote:
>
> > Ideally, I don't know why you would want to overmount unless the
> > kernel detects an initramfs.
>
> because the rootfs doesn't work the way you think it does.
... with the following message:
Aug 21 04:53:28 mudlark kernel: ..<6>sd 0:0:6:0: phase change 6-7
[EMAIL PROTECTED] resid=7.
every 2 seconds. Since the problem being reported seems to have no
effect on the operation of the scsi devices is it really necessary to
report it so often?
Peter
From: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 27 Aug 2005 04:34:07 +0200
> "David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > From: Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 02:58:48 +0400
> >
> > > What's the point of having unlikely() attached to every possible if ()?
> >
"David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From: Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 02:58:48 +0400
>
> > What's the point of having unlikely() attached to every possible if ()?
>
> If can result in smaller code, for one thing, even if it
> isn't a performance
applied to acpi test tree.
thanks,
-Len
>-Original Message-
>From: Venkatesh Pallipadi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 8:11 PM
>To: Andrew Morton
>Cc: linux-kernel; Brown, Len
>Subject: [PATCH] acpi-cpufreq: Remove P-state read after a
>P-state write in normal
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 12:18 -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
> plain text document attachment (fix-memory-leak-in-sg.c-
> seq_file.patch)
> -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
Looks fine to me.
James
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Keith Owens wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 11:22:52 -0700,
> Andrew Vasquez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Keith Owens wrote:
> >
> >> 2.6.13-rc7 + kdb on ia64. The qla2xxx drivers are getting unaligned
> >> accesses at startup.
> >>
> >> qla2300
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 02:32:01PM +0200, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >i've released the 2.6.13-rc6-rt1 tree, which can be downloaded from the
> >usual place:
> >
> > http://redhat.com/~mingo/realtime-preempt/
> >
> >as the name already suggests, i've switched to a new,
Yes. Looks like "ti->drift = HPET_DRIFT;" is right here. However, I
would
like to double check this with Bob.
Thanks,
Venki
>-Original Message-
>From: Alex Williamson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 8:17 AM
>To: Pallipadi, Venkatesh
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
ut it should
serve as a rough guide):
c:\>c:\cygwin\bin\bash
bash$ export PATH=/bin:$PATH
bash$ cd /tmp
bash$ wget http://cygwin.com/snapshots/cygwin-inst-20050826.tar.bz2
bash$ wget http://cygwin.com/snapshots/cygwin1-20050826.dll.bz2
bash$ wget ftp://ftp.kernel.org:/pub/linux/kern
The same code as in sg_init_one can be found in a number of places, this
patch changes them to call the function instead.
Signed-off-by: David Härdeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
crypto/hmac.c | 23 ++-
crypto/tcrypt.c | 29
Wilkerson, Bryan P wrote:
George Anzinger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I checked, it is "int $3". Why then the panic? If you try the
boot with kgdb (i.e. wait) and the do:
(gdb) disass gdb_interrupt
What do you find at +75?
Below is the console from the session it is
On Saturday 27 August 2005 01:05, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Rusty Lynch wrote:
> > Just to be sure everyone understands the overhead involved, kprobes only
> > registers a single notifier. If kprobes is disabled (CONFIG_KPROBES is
> > off) then the overhead on a page fault
I was thinking about Nick's lockless pagecache patches and had a look at
radix-tree.c. At first I had some trouble with some of the way things
were done but after getting used to the style it became clear. However,
I'd like to have these things fixed so that others do not get tripped up
too.
Remove P-state read status after a P-state write in normal case. As
that operation is expensive. There are no known failures of a set and we can
assume success in the common case. acpi_pstate_strict parameter can be used
to force it back on any systems that is known to have errors.
Fix convert_acpiid_to_cpu function to handle cpu_index greater than 256. This
patch also prevents a warning in IA64 cross-compile of this file
(drivers/acpi/processor_core.c:517: warning: comparison is always false due
to limited range of data type).
Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi
It appears that 2.6.13-rc7 has fixed the bug.
I would like to know *What* changed, but I'll probably never find out :(
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
Justin Piszcz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have two different machines with the 7200.8 Seagate 8MB 400GB drives.
Both have ATA/133
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 18:43 -0500, K.R. Foley wrote:
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Oops! my bad. I saw that needed locking, but I didn't have the tracing
> > on (I was trying for internal deadlocks), so that part of the code
> > wasn't compiling. If you turn off tracing it would compile :-)
>
>
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 16:17 -0500, K.R. Foley wrote:
>
>>2.6.13-rc7-rt3 won't compile without the simple patch below.
>>
>
> - __raw_spin_lock(old_owner->task->pi_lock);
> + __raw_spin_lock(_owner->task->pi_lock);
>
George Anzinger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Well, I checked, it is "int $3". Why then the panic? If you try the
>boot with kgdb (i.e. wait) and the do:
>(gdb) disass gdb_interrupt
>What do you find at +75?
Below is the console from the session it is interesting that gdb is not
able to
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 17:44 -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Is this function used in a hot path to warrant using "unlikely"? There
> are to many "unlikely" in the code for my taste.
unlikely() can result in better, smaller, faster code. and it acts as a
nice directive to programmers reading the
Danial Thom wrote:
I didn't refuse. I just chose to take help from
Ben, because Ben took the time to reproduce the
problem and to provide useful settings that made
sense to me. There's nothing wrong with my
machine.
Well, I didn't see the slowdown on my system when I tried 2.6
v/s 2.4. You
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Rusty Lynch wrote:
> Just to be sure everyone understands the overhead involved, kprobes only
> registers a single notifier. If kprobes is disabled (CONFIG_KPROBES is
> off) then the overhead on a page fault is the overhead to execute an empty
> notifier chain.
Its the
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> > Well, I still don't think we need to test vm_file. We can add an
> > anon_vma test if you like, if we really want to minimize the fork
> > overhead, in favour of later faults. Do we?
>
> When you
From: Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 02:58:48 +0400
> What's the point of having unlikely() attached to every possible if ()?
If can result in smaller code, for one thing, even if it
isn't a performance critical path.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Well, I still don't think we need to test vm_file. We can add an
> anon_vma test if you like, if we really want to minimize the fork
> overhead, in favour of later faults. Do we?
When you consider NUMA placement (the child process may
end up running
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> Well, I still don't think we need to test vm_file. We can add an
> anon_vma test if you like, if we really want to minimize the fork
> overhead, in favour of later faults. Do we?
I think we might want to do it in -mm for testing. Because quite
On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 06:18:45PM -0400, Robert Love wrote:
> Attached patch provides a driver for the IBM Hard Drive Active
> Protection System (hdaps) on top of 2.6.13-rc6-mm2.
> --- linux-2.6.13-rc6-mm2/drivers/hwmon/hdaps.c
> +++ linux/drivers/hwmon/hdaps.c
> +static int hdaps_probe(struct
On 8/26/05, Robert Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +static void hdaps_calibrate(void)
> +{
> + int x, y, ret;
> +
> + ret = accelerometer_read_pair(HDAPS_PORT_XPOS, HDAPS_PORT_YPOS, ,
> );
> + if (unlikely(ret))
> + return;
> +
> + rest_x = x;
> +
Robert Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 15:33 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> > Since such a check is possible, that's definitely a merge-stopper IMO
>
> First, I am not asking that Linus merge this. Everyone needs to relax.
>
> Second, we don't know a DMI-based solution
Andrew,
Attached patch provides a driver for the hardware watchdog on-board the
SBC8360 single board computer.
This board is used in many industrial and embedded systems, including many
touch-panel computers from Axiomtek, Inc.
Please consider for inclusion into the mainline Linux kernel.
--- Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Danial Thom wrote:
> > >
> > > --- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Danial Thom wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>I think the concensus is that 2.6 has made
> > >>
> >
Andrew,
Attached patch provides a driver for the IBM Hard Drive Active
Protection System (hdaps) on top of 2.6.13-rc6-mm2.
Over the previous post, it contains several fixes and improvements,
including a dev->probe() routine and a DMI whitelist.
Robert Love
Driver for the IBM HDAPS
I have three different Maxtor (promise) ATA/133 controllers, it happens
with all three.
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Patrick McFarland wrote:
On Friday 26 August 2005 05:36 pm, Justin Piszcz wrote:
2- ATA/133 Maxtor (ATA/Promise Controller)
Make sure its actually the kernel and not that
On Friday 26 August 2005 05:36 pm, Justin Piszcz wrote:
> 2- ATA/133 Maxtor (ATA/Promise Controller)
Make sure its actually the kernel and not that controller. Go find another
identical one and test with it.
--
Patrick "Diablo-D3" McFarland || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Computer games don't affect
On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 10:04:43PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> And beyond that what? I cannot even think what's the rest *. And "obvious"
> doesn't hold with me.
vfsmount *mnt = do_kern_mount("proc", 0, "proc", NULL);
done at init time,
mntput(mnt);
at exit
and mntget(mnt) instead of your
Thanks Al. I'll commit this to our tree. Linus, feel free to apply this to
your tree.
Signed-off-by: Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 11:13:14PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> spinlock used in irq handler should be initialized before registering
> irq, even if we know that our
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 16:17 -0500, K.R. Foley wrote:
> 2.6.13-rc7-rt3 won't compile without the simple patch below.
>
- __raw_spin_lock(old_owner->task->pi_lock);
+ __raw_spin_lock(_owner->task->pi_lock);
TRACE_WARN_ON_LOCKED(plist_empty(>pi_list));
Kernel 2.6.12.5:
1- 400GB Seagate 8MB cache, 7200RPM, ATA/100 drive.
2- ATA/133 Maxtor (ATA/Promise Controller)
1) Attached 400GB to Seagate 400GB drive.
2) (Not mounted yet)
3) See below
hde: 781422768 sectors (400088 MB) w/8192KiB Cache, CHS=48641/255/63,
UDMA(100)
4) Partition with fdisk
On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 01:22:26PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 08:08:51PM +, Kent Robotti wrote:
>
> > Overmount_rootfs shouldn't take place until you know for sure the
> > kernel detects an initramfs.
>
> Actually, it was a deliberate decision to *always*
2.6.13-rc7-rt3 won't compile without the simple patch below.
--
kr
--- linux-2.6.13/kernel/rt.c.orig 2005-08-26 15:51:35.0 -0500
+++ linux-2.6.13/kernel/rt.c 2005-08-26 15:51:55.0 -0500
@@ -672,7 +672,7 @@
struct rt_mutex_waiter *w;
struct plist *curr1;
-
--- Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 10:06:51AM -0700,
> Danial Thom wrote:
> >...
> > I don't think I'm obligated to answer every
> > single person who pipes into a thread. People
> who
> > say "show me your config and dmesg" are not
> > useful. Linux has long
On 8/26/05, Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alessandro Suardi wrote:
> > Stack is hand-copied from the dead box's console.
> >
> > [] die+0xe4/0x170
> > [] do_trap+0x7f/0xc0
> > [] do_invalid_op+0xa3/0xb0
> > [] error_code+0x4f/0x54
> > [] kfree_skbmem+0xb/0x20
> > []
Dear Sir/Madam,
We learnt your e-mail add.from internet.
FIRST OF ALL,PLEASE KINDLY NOTE THIS E-MAIL IS SENT BY
OUR "ADVERTISING COMPANY" AND THE E-MAIL ADDRESS IS
NOT "REAL"(VIRTUAL),THEREFORE,PLEASE CONTACT US
VIA "FAX" OR "POST".DON'T DIRECTLY RESPONSE VIA " E-MAIL"
BECAUSE WE CAN'T RECEIVE
On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 03:29:15PM -0400, Robert Love wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 20:55 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > I think that should be fixed before its merged.
>
> Let me be clear, it has an init routine that effectively probes for the
> device.
>
> It just lacks a simple quick
On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 08:08:51PM +, Kent Robotti wrote:
> Overmount_rootfs shouldn't take place until you know for sure the
> kernel detects an initramfs.
Actually, it was a deliberate decision to *always* overmount after
some discussion with people.
It's not a clean solution and the
sorry. my dumb.
here is not
x = (rand() >> 1) << 1;
but
x = (rand() >> 10) << 10;
file is in bytes while lba is in sector. ;P
ming
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 16:08 -0400, Ming Zhang wrote:
> ---
> #define _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE
>
> #include
>
Is there any Hardware-Detection Program, that directly
gets its Information from the I/O and not from /proc/ files??
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
To unsubscribe from this
On 8/26/05, Robert Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 14:27 -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>
> > What this completion is used for? I don't see any other references to it.
>
> It was the start of the release() routine, but I decided to move to
>
I ran a small test program on a 400GB SATA disk connected to Marvel
chip. Using 2.6.11.12 kernel and get this strange behavior.
# iostat -k -p /dev/sdj
Linux 2.6.11.12 (bakstor2u.localdomain) 08/26/2005
avg-cpu: %user %nice%sys %iowait %idle
0.110.006.63
On 8/26/05, Robert Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 15:39 -0400, Robert Love wrote:
>
> > > This is racy - 2 threads can try to do this simultaneously.
> >
> > Fixed. Thanks.
>
> Actually, doesn't sysfs and/or the vfs layer serialize the two
> simultaneous writes?
>
Not
On Friday 26 August 2005 21:03, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 04:57:44PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > From: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Update hppfs for the symlink functions prototype change.
> > Should be trivial, but please verify it's correct.
> >
On Friday 26 August 2005 21:11, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > This is a followup to my post of last week (Aug 12) about
> > remap_file_pages protection support. I've improved and consolidated the
> > patches and updated them against 2.6.13-rc6/rc7 (the same
On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 12:06:47PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 09:39:15PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't it be better to put overmount_rootfs in initramfs.c
> > and call it only if there's a initramfs?
>
> I don't see what or how that helps. Yes we can
George Anzinger wrote:
Wilkerson, Bryan P wrote:
Thanks you Tom and George for the tips on using kgdb with
2.6.13-rc4-mm1.
I almost have it working but kgdb seems to have a few issues. I can get
it running from the dev machine using the kgdb and console=kgdb boot
options on the test kernel.
On Gwe, 2005-08-26 at 15:37 -0400, Robert Love wrote:
> Second, we don't know a DMI-based solution will work. I'll check it out.
Another good sanity check would be tool for the right bridge chips with
device->subvendor == IBM ?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Alex Williamson wrote:
Would we ever want to favor a frequency shifting timer over anything
else in the system? If it was noticeable perhaps we'd just need a
callback to re-evaluate the frequency and rescan for the best timer. If
it happens
[CIFS] Fix oops in fs/locks.c on close of file with pending locks
The recent change to locks_remove_flock code in fs/locks.c changes how
byte range locks are removed from closing files, which shows up a bug in
cifs. The assumption in the cifs code was that the close call sent to
the server
Hi!
> > 2. that printk will never hit the logs, so the admin will just find
> > a powered off box with no idea what happened.
> > Should we at least sync block devices before doing the power off ?
>
> AFAICS, this is still a problem with kernel_power_off() though ?
>
Look at how acpi does
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 15:39 -0400, Robert Love wrote:
> > This is racy - 2 threads can try to do this simultaneously.
>
> Fixed. Thanks.
Actually, doesn't sysfs and/or the vfs layer serialize the two
simultaneous writes?
Robert Love
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Hi!
> > Unfortunately, it makes sense. If you have compact flash card, you
> > really want to have VFAT there, so that it is a) compatible with
> > windows and b) so that you don't kill the hardware.
>
> VFAT is plenty good at killing hardware. It's a terrible filesystem for
> flash cards (if
Hi!
> The first version of this patch didn't allow for the request firmware
> case which does multiple parsing passes on the parameter. This was
> discussed in the thread '2.6.13-rc6-mm1'
I still thing this is very wrong to do. sysfs should not try to outguess users.
--
64 bytes from
-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
--
Based upon a bug report and initial patch by
Ollie Wild.
Signed-off-by: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: "David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Chris Wright <[EMAIL
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Alex Williamson wrote:
>Would we ever want to favor a frequency shifting timer over anything
> else in the system? If it was noticeable perhaps we'd just need a
> callback to re-evaluate the frequency and rescan for the best timer. If
> it happens without notice, a flag
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 15:33 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Since such a check is possible, that's definitely a merge-stopper IMO
First, I am not asking that Linus merge this. Everyone needs to relax.
Second, we don't know a DMI-based solution will work. I'll check it out.
Robert Love
-
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 14:27 -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> What this completion is used for? I don't see any other references to it.
It was the start of the release() routine, but I decided to move to
platform_device_register_simple() and use its release, instead. So this
is gone now in my
Wilkerson, Bryan P wrote:
Thanks you Tom and George for the tips on using kgdb with
2.6.13-rc4-mm1.
I almost have it working but kgdb seems to have a few issues. I can get
it running from the dev machine using the kgdb and console=kgdb boot
options on the test kernel. The kernel waits as
Robert Love wrote:
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 20:55 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
I think that should be fixed before its merged.
Let me be clear, it has an init routine that effectively probes for the
device.
It just lacks a simple quick non-invasive check.
Since such a check is possible, that's
On 8/26/05, Robert Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +/* device class stuff */
> +
> +static DECLARE_COMPLETION(hdaps_obj_is_free);
> +static void hdaps_release_dev(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + complete(_obj_is_free);
> +}
> +
What this completion is used for? I don't see any other
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 20:55 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> I think that should be fixed before its merged.
Let me be clear, it has an init routine that effectively probes for the
device.
It just lacks a simple quick non-invasive check.
The driver will definitely fail to load on a laptop without the
-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
--
It turns out that empty distance code tables are not an error, and that
a compressed block with only literals can validly have an empty table
and should not be flagged as a data error.
Some old versions
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 12:16 -0700, George Anzinger wrote:
> Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 08:39 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> >>1. If a system boots up with a single cpu then there is no question that
> >>the ITC/TSC should be used because of the fast access.
>
> We need
-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
--
The interface needs much redesigning if we wish to allow
normal users to do this in some way.
Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: "David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Gwe, 2005-08-26 at 13:33 -0400, Brian Gerst wrote:
> Is there any way to detect that this device is present (PCI, ACPI, etc.)
> without poking at ports?
DMI or probably IBM ssid values. Presumably IBM have somewhere they look
for this information ?
Making the driver only load on a DMI match
On Gwe, 2005-08-26 at 14:03 -0400, Robert Love wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 20:01 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > > Not that we've been able to tell. It is a legacy platform device.
> > >
> > > So, unfortunately, no probe() routine.
> >
> > dmi surely
>
> Patches accepted.
I think
-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
--
I think there is a type error when port genelink driver to 2.6..
With this error, a linux host will panic when it link with a windows
host.
Cc: David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Chris
-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
--
This bug is quite subtle and only happens in a very interesting
situation where a real-time threaded process is in the middle of a
coredump when someone whacks it with a SIGKILL. However, this deadlock
-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
--
Changing it to how ip_input handles should fix it.
Signed-off-by: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: "David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Chris Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
--
I know that scsi procfs is legacy code but this is a fix for a memory leak.
While reading through sg.c I realized that the implementation of
/proc/scsi/sg/devices with seq_file is leaking memory due to
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Blaisorblade wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 August 2005 15:26, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> > If do_swap_page gets
> > a write fault, it either determines it can go ahead and use the swap
> > page, or if it can't, gets do_wp_page to Copy-On-Write for it (that's
> > a call I added in
This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 2.6.12.6 release.
There are 7 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response to
this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please let
us know. If anyone is a maintainer of the proper subsystem, and wants
to add a
Alex Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 08:39 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
I think a priority is something useful for the interpolators. Some of
the decisions about which time sources to use also have criteria different
from drift/latency/jitter/cpu. F.e. timers may not survive
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 08:05:32PM +0100, Alan Jenkins wrote:
> I'm curious as to why the kernel has to include the decoder - why
> you can't just run a self-extracting executable in an empty
> initramfs (with a preset capacity if needs be).
You could do tht right now if you wished.
We just
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 11:38:49AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What if you have a root.cpio.gz that requires 200MB to hold, but you
> only have 300MB of memory?
then it won't work with nay of the schemes you've suggested
> 50% of total memory wouldn't hold it, but 90% etc. would
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 09:55:27AM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> Of course. Never found a motherboard yet with decent built-in
> NICs. The built-ins on this board are tg3 and they must be on
> a slow bus, because they cannot go faster than about 700Mbps
> (using big pkts).
There should be a number
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Blaisorblade wrote:
> This is a followup to my post of last week (Aug 12) about remap_file_pages
> protection support. I've improved and consolidated the patches and updated
> them against 2.6.13-rc6/rc7 (the same patches apply against both versions).
> I'm sending the full
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 09:39:15PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to put overmount_rootfs in initramfs.c
> and call it only if there's a initramfs?
I don't see what or how that helps. Yes we can shuffle some code
about but the real problem still exists.
That is is that
On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 04:57:44PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> From: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Update hppfs for the symlink functions prototype change.
> Should be trivial, but please verify it's correct.
>
> Yes, I know the code I leave there is still
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Ross Biro wrote:
> On 8/26/05, Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Filling in all the page table entries at the first fault to
> > a VMA doesn't make much sense, IMHO.
> >
> > I suspect we would be better off without that extra complexity,
> > unless there is a
1 - 100 of 488 matches
Mail list logo
