Chris Friesen wrote:
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
The sorts of like explicit decisions I'd like to be made for these are:
(1) In a mixture of tasks with varying nice numbers, a given nice number
corresponds to some share of CPU bandwidth. Implementations
should not have the freedom to
Matt Mackall wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:59:02PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:32:56PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
I'm working with the following suggestion:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 09:07:49AM -0400, James Bruce wrote:
Nonlinear is a must IMO. I
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Have the Linux kernel set a new VGA palette for the first 16 colors.
The new values reduce the saturation (white component) and therefore
increase contrast.
snip
While the patch seems fine, this comment is not correct. The patch is
decreasing the *brightness* in order
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Monday 03 September 2007 14:26:29 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The fact
remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* form of
copyright
license has the right to revoke said grant of license to anyone.
Not after the
Robert Hancock wrote:
Casey Dahlin wrote:
Most USB keys nowadays have a small LED somewhere inside of them that
lights up when they are plugged in. On a windows box, the key is lit
up whenever it is mounted, and as soon as it is unmounted it turns
off, giving a handy physical indicator that
While I agree with your overall sentiment, please compare apples to
apples regarding the license. You said:
Larry McVoy wrote:
I don't come here every month and ask for
the GPL to be removed from some driver, that's essentially what you are
doing and I think pretty much everyone is sick of it.
Roman, please give up on importing 100% of the history. There's no
point arguing something if you already know what the other person's
answer will be. Larry will not change his mind under any currently
foreseeable circumstances. Yes, there is meta-data lockin whether
anyone at BitMover will
I agree with this 100%, and this is exactly the same conclusion we came
to in our research lab.
Tom Felker wrote:
I really think the fewer restrictions you put on BK's use, the less likely it
will be copied. When the open source community copies something, it's not out
of a desire to screw
As a final update, I added the third card to another machine and that
doesn't work either. So after trying 3 kernels on two machines with
either one or two cards, and trying the ~120 different card options for
bttv to no avail, I'll just guess this card isn't actually supported
right now.
Hi I've read elsewhere that the following message:
tveeprom(bttv internal): Huh, no eeprom present (err=-121)?
Means that a bttv card is dead. If so, then I've apparently found a way
to kill bttv cards in vanilla 2.6.10. They worked fine a few days ago,
but after running some cleaned up
are actually 1 year old, but they sat in a running Linux
machine without the bttv drivers loaded. They died after 3 days of
working flawlessly in a new machine where they were actually being used.
Gerd Knorr wrote:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 11:57:49PM -0500, James Bruce wrote:
Hi I've read elsewhere
Gerd Knorr wrote:
James Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, are there any theories as to why it would work flawlessly, then
after a hard lockup (due to what I think is a buggy V4L2 application),
that the cards no longer work?
No idea why the eeprom doesn't respond any more. Maybe it's really
might be triggered.
- Jim Bruce
Bill Davidsen wrote:
James Bruce wrote:
Well, are there any theories as to why it would work flawlessly, then
after a hard lockup (due to what I think is a buggy V4L2 application),
that the cards no longer work? That was with 2.6.10, but after they
started
in finding it.
Gerd Knorr wrote:
James Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you could suggest a very well tested kernel for bttv (2.6.9?),
What do you expect? With just one single report and not remotely
being clear what exactly caused it ...
It goes further than that though; I have about 3+ people
system.
- Jim Bruce
Paulo Marques wrote:
James Bruce wrote:
[...]
The card= option didn't help in my case since my card is not in the
list; For thess cards we went off the reccomendation of other people
doing machine vision in Linux; Next time I guess we'll go name brand
again...
I think you
I believe that IBM is simply responding to the recent study that Linux
violates more than 283 patents. Regardless of the truth to that study,
this is IBM's way of stating that the 60 that they hold will not be used
against Linux or other open source projects.
Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
On Mon,
Pavel Machek wrote:
First numbers were 0.5W on idle system; that shows what kind of
powersaving can be done. Powersaving is no longer possible when artsd
is not running, but that should not be used as argument against it.
It was an idle system with no display, zero daemons running, and the
Lee Revell wrote:
On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 23:10 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
[But we
probably want to enable ACPI and cpufreq by default, because that
matches what 99% of users will use.]
Sorry, this is just ridiculous. You're saying 99% of Linux
installations are laptops? Bullshit.
I believe
Pavel Machek wrote:
Then the second test was probably flawed, possibly because we have
some more work to do. No display is irrelevant, HZ=100 will still save
0.5W with running display. Spinning disk also does not produce CPU
load (and we *will* want to have disk spinned down). No daemons... if
Lee Revell wrote:
On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 23:10 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
defconfig on i386 is Linus' configuration. Maybe server-config and
laptop-config would be good idea...
Um, what about those things called desktops? They're like a laptop
but with reasonable hard drive speeds and
David Weinehall wrote:
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 07:23:54PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
Any idea what their official recommendation for people running apps that
require the 1ms sleep resolution is? Something along the lines of Get
bent?
Calm down.
Yes, Lee needs to chill a bit. I'll hopefully
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:18:18PM -0400, James Bruce wrote:
The tradeoff is a realistic 4.4% power savings vs a 300% increase in
the minimum sleep period. A user will see zero power savings if they
have a USB mouse (probably 99% of desktops). On top of that, we can
Stephen Clark wrote:
Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
systems that don't.
If it's an old system, it probably doesn't have working ACPI C-states
though. Without that, low HZ does not save you anything. I should have
said: 99% of desktops with the
(Sorry all, but after receiving about 5 similar messages I'm going to
make one last reply.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, my understanding was that when we properly support usb suspend,
this won't be an issue anyway for much usb hardware. I think it's
possible to put some mice to sleep when
Ondrej Zary wrote:
James Bruce wrote:
Stephen Clark wrote:
Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of
old systems that don't.
If it's an old system, it probably doesn't have working ACPI C-states
though. Without that, low HZ does not save you anything. I should
Linus Torvalds wrote:
[ snip ]
I consider dual-licensing unlikely (and technically quite hard), but at
least _possible_ in theory. I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for
licensing under the GPLv3, though.
[ snip ]
One thing that would make that easier in the future is if contributers
at
Jesper Juhl wrote:
One thing that would make that easier in the future is if contributers
at least started to dual-license their submissions. I.e. if instead
of GPL version 2, one could say GPL version 2 or GPL version 3.
It isn't the same thing as the problematic GPL version 2 or later,
Hi,
Ph. Marek wrote:
in Oct 2000 there's been some discussion Tux2 - evil patents sighted
(http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0010.0/0343.html), and in Aug
2002 (http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0208.3/0332.html) Daniel
wrote
It's well down my list of priorities
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Roman Zippel noticed inconsistency of the wmult table.
wmult[16] has a missing digit.
[snip]
While we're at it, isn't the comment above the wmult table incorrect?
The multiplier is 1.25, meaning a 25% change per nice level, not 10%.
- Jim
-
To unsubscribe from this
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* James Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While we're at it, isn't the comment above the wmult table incorrect?
The multiplier is 1.25, meaning a 25% change per nice level, not 10%.
yes, the weight multiplier 1.25, but the actual
While I agree with your overall sentiment, please compare apples to
apples regarding the license. You said:
Larry McVoy wrote:
I don't come here every month and ask for
the GPL to be removed from some driver, that's essentially what you are
doing and I think pretty much everyone is sick of it.
Roman, please give up on importing 100% of the history. There's no
point arguing something if you already know what the other person's
answer will be. Larry will not change his mind under any currently
foreseeable circumstances. Yes, there is "meta-data lockin" whether
anyone at BitMover
I agree with this 100%, and this is exactly the same conclusion we came
to in our research lab.
Tom Felker wrote:
I really think the fewer restrictions you put on BK's use, the less likely it
will be copied. When the open source community copies something, it's not out
of a desire to screw
As a final update, I added the third card to another machine and that
doesn't work either. So after trying 3 kernels on two machines with
either one or two cards, and trying the ~120 different card options for
bttv to no avail, I'll just guess this card isn't actually supported
right now.
Hi I've read elsewhere that the following message:
"tveeprom(bttv internal): Huh, no eeprom present (err=-121)?"
Means that a bttv card is dead. If so, then I've apparently found a way
to kill bttv cards in vanilla 2.6.10. They worked fine a few days ago,
but after running some "cleaned up"
are actually >1 year old, but they sat in a running Linux
machine without the bttv drivers loaded. They died after 3 days of
working flawlessly in a new machine where they were actually being used.
Gerd Knorr wrote:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 11:57:49PM -0500, James Bruce wrote:
Hi I've read elsewh
Gerd Knorr wrote:
James Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Well, are there any theories as to why it would work flawlessly, then
after a hard lockup (due to what I think is a buggy V4L2 application),
that the cards no longer work?
No idea why the eeprom doesn't respond any more. Maybe it's
milar enough to bttv chips that the same problem might be triggered.
- Jim Bruce
Bill Davidsen wrote:
James Bruce wrote:
Well, are there any theories as to why it would work flawlessly, then
after a hard lockup (due to what I think is a buggy V4L2 application),
that the cards no longe
in finding it.
Gerd Knorr wrote:
James Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
If you could suggest a very well tested kernel for bttv (2.6.9?),
What do you expect? With just one single report and not remotely
being clear what exactly caused it ...
It goes further than that though; I have about 3+
system.
- Jim Bruce
Paulo Marques wrote:
James Bruce wrote:
[...]
The card= option didn't help in my case since my card is not in the
list; For thess cards we went off the reccomendation of other people
doing machine vision in Linux; Next time I guess we'll go name brand
again...
I think you
Pavel Machek wrote:
First numbers were 0.5W on idle system; that shows what kind of
powersaving can be done. Powersaving is no longer possible when artsd
is not running, but that should not be used as argument against it.
It was an idle system with no display, zero daemons running, and the
Lee Revell wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 23:10 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>[But we
>>probably want to enable ACPI and cpufreq by default, because that
>>matches what 99% of users will use.]
>
> Sorry, this is just ridiculous. You're saying 99% of Linux
> installations are laptops? Bullshit.
Pavel Machek wrote:
Then the second test was probably flawed, possibly because we have
some more work to do. No display is irrelevant, HZ=100 will still save
0.5W with running display. Spinning disk also does not produce CPU
load (and we *will* want to have disk spinned down). No daemons... if
Lee Revell wrote:
On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 23:10 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
defconfig on i386 is Linus' configuration. Maybe server-config and
laptop-config would be good idea...
Um, what about those things called "desktops"? They're like a laptop
but with reasonable hard drive speeds and
David Weinehall wrote:
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 07:23:54PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
Any idea what their official recommendation for people running apps that
require the 1ms sleep resolution is? Something along the lines of "Get
bent"?
Calm down.
Yes, Lee needs to chill a bit. I'll
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:18:18PM -0400, James Bruce wrote:
>>The tradeoff is a realistic 4.4% power savings vs a 300% increase in
>>the minimum sleep period. A user will see zero power savings if they
>>have a USB mouse (probably 99% of desktops). O
Stephen Clark wrote:
Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of old
systems that don't.
If it's an old system, it probably doesn't have working ACPI C-states
though. Without that, low HZ does not save you anything. I should have
said: 99% of desktops with the
(Sorry all, but after receiving about 5 similar messages I'm going to
make one last reply.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, my understanding was that when we properly support usb suspend,
this won't be an issue anyway for much usb hardware. I think it's
possible to put some mice to sleep when
Ondrej Zary wrote:
James Bruce wrote:
Stephen Clark wrote:
Maybe new desktop systems - but what about the tens of millions of
old systems that don't.
If it's an old system, it probably doesn't have working ACPI C-states
though. Without that, low HZ does not save you anything. I should
I believe that IBM is simply responding to the recent study that "Linux
violates more than 283 patents". Regardless of the truth to that study,
this is IBM's way of stating that the 60 that they hold will not be used
against Linux or other open source projects.
Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
On
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Have the Linux kernel set a new VGA palette for the first 16 colors.
The new values reduce the saturation (white component) and therefore
increase contrast.
While the patch seems fine, this comment is not correct. The patch is
decreasing the *brightness* in order to
Chris Friesen wrote:
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
The sorts of like explicit decisions I'd like to be made for these are:
(1) In a mixture of tasks with varying nice numbers, a given nice number
corresponds to some share of CPU bandwidth. Implementations
should not have the freedom to
Matt Mackall wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:59:02PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:32:56PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
I'm working with the following suggestion:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 09:07:49AM -0400, James Bruce wrote:
Nonlinear is a must IMO. I
Linus Torvalds wrote:
[ snip ]
I consider dual-licensing unlikely (and technically quite hard), but at
least _possible_ in theory. I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for
licensing under the GPLv3, though.
[ snip ]
One thing that would make that easier in the future is if contributers
at
Jesper Juhl wrote:
One thing that would make that easier in the future is if contributers
at least started to dual-license their submissions. I.e. if instead
of "GPL version 2", one could say "GPL version 2 or GPL version 3".
It isn't the same thing as the problematic "GPL version 2 or later",
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Roman Zippel noticed inconsistency of the wmult table.
wmult[16] has a missing digit.
[snip]
While we're at it, isn't the comment above the wmult table incorrect?
The multiplier is 1.25, meaning a 25% change per nice level, not 10%.
- Jim
-
To unsubscribe from this
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* James Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While we're at it, isn't the comment above the wmult table incorrect?
The multiplier is 1.25, meaning a 25% change per nice level, not 10%.
yes, the weight multiplier 1.25, bu
Hi,
Ph. Marek wrote:
in Oct 2000 there's been some discussion "Tux2 - evil patents sighted"
(http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0010.0/0343.html), and in Aug
2002 (http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0208.3/0332.html) Daniel
wrote
It's well down my list of priorities
Robert Hancock wrote:
Casey Dahlin wrote:
Most USB keys nowadays have a small LED somewhere inside of them that
lights up when they are plugged in. On a windows box, the key is lit
up whenever it is mounted, and as soon as it is unmounted it turns
off, giving a handy physical indicator that
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Monday 03 September 2007 14:26:29 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The fact
remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* form of
copyright
license has the right to revoke said grant of license to anyone.
Not after the
60 matches
Mail list logo
