Hi all
Since upgrading my routers from the 4.14 to the 4.19 kernel series, I
frequently get into the situation that my second (and also third) nic
goes down, with
igb :02:00.0 enp2s0: Reset adapter
Sometimes, it will come up again, sometimes not. I have googled and got
a lot of hits,
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Tim Tassonis wrote:
Hi all
Just found out that squashfs panics when compiled in statically instead of
as a module, when mounting an sqf file. The sequence I did was:
# mkdir /mnt/gaia-ro
# mount /gaiarule.sqf /mnt/gaia-ro -t squashfs -o loop
Maybe
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Tim Tassonis wrote:
Hi all
Just found out that squashfs panics when compiled in statically instead of
as a module, when mounting an sqf file. The sequence I did was:
# mkdir /mnt/gaia-ro
# mount /gaiarule.sqf /mnt/gaia-ro -t squashfs -o loop
Maybe
Hi all
Just found out that squashfs panics when compiled in statically instead
of as a module, when mounting an sqf file. The sequence I did was:
# mkdir /mnt/gaia-ro
# mount /gaiarule.sqf /mnt/gaia-ro -t squashfs -o loop
Maybe it is of importance that the sqf file is located in the
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Tim Tassonis st...@decentral.ch wrote:
Hi all
Just found out that squashfs panics when compiled in statically instead of
as a module, when mounting an sqf file. The sequence I did was:
# mkdir /mnt/gaia-ro
# mount /gaiarule.sqf /mnt/gaia-ro -t squashfs -o
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Tim Tassonis st...@decentral.ch wrote:
Hi all
Just found out that squashfs panics when compiled in statically instead of
as a module, when mounting an sqf file. The sequence I did was:
# mkdir /mnt/gaia-ro
# mount /gaiarule.sqf /mnt/gaia-ro -t squashfs -o
Hi all
Just found out that squashfs panics when compiled in statically instead
of as a module, when mounting an sqf file. The sequence I did was:
# mkdir /mnt/gaia-ro
# mount /gaiarule.sqf /mnt/gaia-ro -t squashfs -o loop
Maybe it is of importance that the sqf file is located in the
On 10/28/2014 11:54 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 09:13:13PM +, Al Viro wrote:
>
>>
>> We probably ought to split the normal (case-sensitive, no joliet shite) case
>> out and leave it with NULL ->s_d_op, but that'll need to be done carefully,
>> or isofs_cmp() will blow up on
Hi
Just installed 3.18-rc2 and tried to test the overlayfs stuff:
$ mkdir /ovtmp
$ mount -t tmpfs tmpfs /ovtmp/
$ mkdir /ovtmp/work
$ mkdir /ovtmp/upper
$ mkdir /cdrw
$ mount /dev/sr0 /mnt
$ mount |egrep "ovtmp|sr0"
/dev/sr0 on /mnt type iso9660 (ro,relatime)
tmpfs on /ovtmp type tmpfs
Hi
Just installed 3.18-rc2 and tried to test the overlayfs stuff:
$ mkdir /ovtmp
$ mount -t tmpfs tmpfs /ovtmp/
$ mkdir /ovtmp/work
$ mkdir /ovtmp/upper
$ mkdir /cdrw
$ mount /dev/sr0 /mnt
$ mount |egrep ovtmp|sr0
/dev/sr0 on /mnt type iso9660 (ro,relatime)
tmpfs on /ovtmp type tmpfs
On 10/28/2014 11:54 PM, Al Viro wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 09:13:13PM +, Al Viro wrote:
We probably ought to split the normal (case-sensitive, no joliet shite) case
out and leave it with NULL -s_d_op, but that'll need to be done carefully,
or isofs_cmp() will blow up on us.
See
Hi Marc
What's the point? People are openly hostile to new
ideas here. I started out nice and laid out my ideas
and you have a bunch of morons who attack anything
new.
If you think using subjects like "Thinking out of the box" (implicitely
calling everybody else narrow-minded) and "vi causes
Hi Marc
Before everyone gets pissed off and freaks out why
don't you ponder the question why rm won't delete all
the files in the directory. If you can't grasp that
then you're brain damaged.
Think big people. Say NO to vi!
At first I thought you've got a point here: you definitely _do_
Hi Marc
Before everyone gets pissed off and freaks out why
don't you ponder the question why rm won't delete all
the files in the directory. If you can't grasp that
then you're brain damaged.
Think big people. Say NO to vi!
At first I thought you've got a point here: you definitely _do_
Hi Marc
What's the point? People are openly hostile to new
ideas here. I started out nice and laid out my ideas
and you have a bunch of morons who attack anything
new.
If you think using subjects like Thinking out of the box (implicitely
calling everybody else narrow-minded) and vi causes
The ACLs that were added to Linux were a step in the
right direction but very incomplete. What should be is
a complex permission system that would allow fine
grained permissions and inherentance masks to control
what permission are granted when someone moves new
files into a directory. Instead of
The ACLs that were added to Linux were a step in the
right direction but very incomplete. What should be is
a complex permission system that would allow fine
grained permissions and inherentance masks to control
what permission are granted when someone moves new
files into a directory. Instead of
Linus Torvalds wrote:
I think "must_check" is an abomination. It makes the callee dictate what
the caller has to do, but dammit, if the callee really "knows" its errors
are that serious, it should damn well handle them itself.
The whole "sysfs_create_file()" thing is an example of that. If
Linus Torvalds wrote:
I think must_check is an abomination. It makes the callee dictate what
the caller has to do, but dammit, if the callee really knows its errors
are that serious, it should damn well handle them itself.
The whole sysfs_create_file() thing is an example of that. If it
+ printk("Fair Scheduler: Copyright (c) 2007 Red Hat, Inc., Ingo
Molnar\n");
So that's what all the fuss about the staircase scheduler is all about
then! At last, I see your point.
i'd like to give credit to Con Kolivas for the general approach here:
he has proven via RSDL/SD
+ printk(Fair Scheduler: Copyright (c) 2007 Red Hat, Inc., Ingo
Molnar\n);
So that's what all the fuss about the staircase scheduler is all about
then! At last, I see your point.
i'd like to give credit to Con Kolivas for the general approach here:
he has proven via RSDL/SD
Hi Con
Just also wanted to throw in my less than two cents: I applied the patch
and also have the very strong subjective impression that my system
"feels" much more responsive than with stock 2.6.20.
Thanks for the great work.
Bye
Tim
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Hi Con
Just also wanted to throw in my less than two cents: I applied the patch
and also have the very strong subjective impression that my system
feels much more responsive than with stock 2.6.20.
Thanks for the great work.
Bye
Tim
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
23 matches
Mail list logo
