Oops on 2.4.0-test8 with soundcard SB 16 ISA Value

I am not subscribed to this list. I got the really oold ISA original Sound Blaster 16 and got the following Oops when running aumix: Sep 23 12:43:46 flarp kernel: eax: 0001 ebx: cfaa4400 ecx: edx: e8515510 Sep 23 12:43:46 flarp kernel: esi: ccce0dc0 edi: ebp:

Re: NonExecutable Bit in 32Bit

On 4/24/07, William Heimbigner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Cestonaro, Thilo (external) wrote: Hey, is it right, that the NX Bit is not used under i386-Arch but under x86_64-Arch? When yes, is there a special argument for it not to be used? Ciao Thilo I don't think so -

Re: NonExecutable Bit in 32Bit

On 4/25/07, Cestonaro, Thilo (external) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey, CONFIG_HIGHMEM64G=y CONFIG_HIGHMEM=y CONFIG_X86_PAE=y Ok in highmem it's active, whats about lowmem? x86-64 is NX active for lowmem too AFAIK. It's more of an issue of having PAE enabled. Without PAE you are not able to

Re: NonExecutable Bit in 32Bit

On 4/25/07, Tuncer Ayaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/25/07, Cestonaro, Thilo (external) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey, CONFIG_HIGHMEM64G=y CONFIG_HIGHMEM=y CONFIG_X86_PAE=y Ok in highmem it's active, whats about lowmem? x86-64 is NX active for lowmem too AFAIK. It's more of an issue

2.6.22 libata spindown

I'm still seeing the libata warning that disks were not spun down properly on the following two setups and am wondering whether I need a new shutdown binary or the changeset mentioned below is not meant to fix what I'm triggering by halt'ing. If it's not a bug I will try to update my shutdown

Re: 2.6.22 libata spindown

On 6/1/07, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tuncer Ayaz wrote: I'm still seeing the libata warning that disks were not spun down properly on the following two setups and am wondering whether I need a new shutdown binary or the changeset mentioned below is not meant to fix what I'm

Re: Problem with http URL for stable git tree?

On 6/4/07, Tim Bird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 12:10:01PM -0700, Tim Bird wrote: Greg, I'm having problems cloning the stable git tree for 2.6.21. Here's what I get: $ git clone http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-2.6.21.y.git

Re: 4.1 EOL

On 11/14/17, Jani Nikula wrote: > > Tuncer, where's your bug report? Can't find one. Please file your > bug at the fdo bugzilla. I'm sorry if this wasn't clear. I didn't file a bug report since others have already done so, reporting the same symptoms. I did sign up

Re: 4.1 EOL

On 11/16/17, Jani Nikula <jani.nik...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Tuncer Ayaz <tuncer.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't follow why you think it's a different platform and how I > > might have "more" definitely shown v4.1 to be good, but I

Re: 4.1 EOL

On 11/15/17, Jani Nikula wrote: > The freedesktop.org bugs you reference are for rather different > platforms than yours. There's nothing there to indicate v4.1 being > the last known good kernel like for you. There is no exact same > report. I don't follow why you

Oops on 2.4.0-test8 with soundcard SB 16 ISA Value

I am not subscribed to this list. I got the really oold ISA original Sound Blaster 16 and got the following Oops when running aumix: Sep 23 12:43:46 flarp kernel: eax: 0001 ebx: cfaa4400 ecx: edx: e8515510 Sep 23 12:43:46 flarp kernel: esi: ccce0dc0 edi: ebp:

Re: NonExecutable Bit in 32Bit

On 4/24/07, William Heimbigner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Cestonaro, Thilo (external) wrote: > Hey, > > is it right, that the NX Bit is not used under i386-Arch but > under x86_64-Arch? > When yes, is there a special argument for it not to be used? > > Ciao Thilo I don't

Re: NonExecutable Bit in 32Bit

On 4/25/07, Cestonaro, Thilo (external) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hey, > CONFIG_HIGHMEM64G=y > CONFIG_HIGHMEM=y > CONFIG_X86_PAE=y Ok in highmem it's active, whats about lowmem? x86-64 is NX active for lowmem too AFAIK. It's more of an issue of having PAE enabled. Without PAE you are not

Re: NonExecutable Bit in 32Bit

On 4/25/07, Tuncer Ayaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 4/25/07, Cestonaro, Thilo (external) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey, > > > CONFIG_HIGHMEM64G=y > > CONFIG_HIGHMEM=y > > CONFIG_X86_PAE=y > > Ok in highmem it's active, whats about lowmem? > x8

Re: Problem with http URL for stable git tree?

On 6/4/07, Tim Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 12:10:01PM -0700, Tim Bird wrote: >> Greg, >> >> I'm having problems cloning the stable git tree for 2.6.21. >> Here's what I get: >> >> $ git clone

2.6.22 libata spindown

I'm still seeing the libata warning that disks were not spun down properly on the following two setups and am wondering whether I need a new shutdown binary or the changeset mentioned below is not meant to fix what I'm triggering by halt'ing. If it's not a bug I will try to update my shutdown

Re: 2.6.22 libata spindown

On 6/1/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Tuncer Ayaz wrote: > I'm still seeing the libata warning that disks were not spun down > properly on the following two setups and am wondering whether I need > a new shutdown binary or the changeset mentioned below is not meant &g

Re: 4.1 EOL

On 11/14/17, Jani Nikula wrote: > > Tuncer, where's your bug report? Can't find one. Please file your > bug at the fdo bugzilla. I'm sorry if this wasn't clear. I didn't file a bug report since others have already done so, reporting the same symptoms. I did sign up yesterday to confirm this in

Re: 4.1 EOL

On 11/15/17, Jani Nikula wrote: > The freedesktop.org bugs you reference are for rather different > platforms than yours. There's nothing there to indicate v4.1 being > the last known good kernel like for you. There is no exact same > report. I don't follow why you think it's a different

Re: 4.1 EOL

On 11/16/17, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Tuncer Ayaz wrote: > > I don't follow why you think it's a different platform and how I > > might have "more" definitely shown v4.1 to be good, but I'll trust > > your judgement as a drm dev and not argue :)