--On Tuesday, August 09, 2005 11:55:36 -0500 James Bottomley <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 07:59 -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>> Dear novice test examiner,
>>
>> It's in http://test.kernel.org with everything else ;-)
>> 2.6.13-rc4-mm1+jejb_fix ... drills down to:
>>
>>
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 07:59 -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> Dear novice test examiner,
>
> It's in http://test.kernel.org with everything else ;-)
> 2.6.13-rc4-mm1+jejb_fix ... drills down to:
>
> http://test.kernel.org/10080/debug/console.log
Well, OK, apparently some novice coder made an
--James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (on Tuesday, August 09, 2005
09:26:44 -0500):
> On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 21:41 -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>> Nope, is the same as before with this patch
>
> Dear novice bug reporter,
>
> Thank you for taking the trouble to test this.
On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 21:41 -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> Nope, is the same as before with this patch
Dear novice bug reporter,
Thank you for taking the trouble to test this. Unfortunately, without
any dmesg output, it's rather hard to tell what's going on here. Would
you be so kind as
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 07:59 -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
Dear novice test examiner,
It's in http://test.kernel.org with everything else ;-)
2.6.13-rc4-mm1+jejb_fix ... drills down to:
http://test.kernel.org/10080/debug/console.log
Well, OK, apparently some novice coder made an error
--On Tuesday, August 09, 2005 11:55:36 -0500 James Bottomley [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 07:59 -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
Dear novice test examiner,
It's in http://test.kernel.org with everything else ;-)
2.6.13-rc4-mm1+jejb_fix ... drills down to:
On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 21:41 -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
Nope, is the same as before with this patch
Dear novice bug reporter,
Thank you for taking the trouble to test this. Unfortunately, without
any dmesg output, it's rather hard to tell what's going on here. Would
you be so kind as
--James Bottomley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (on Tuesday, August 09, 2005
09:26:44 -0500):
On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 21:41 -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
Nope, is the same as before with this patch
Dear novice bug reporter,
Thank you for taking the trouble to test this. Unfortunately,
> On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 07:36 -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>> Howcome it works on all mainline kernels, and not -mm then? ;-)
>> Did we fix an error path to detect failures, maybe?
>
> Well, OK, it might be something to do with your drives trying to
> negotiate IU and QAS. Support for this was
On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 07:36 -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
Howcome it works on all mainline kernels, and not -mm then? ;-)
Did we fix an error path to detect failures, maybe?
Well, OK, it might be something to do with your drives trying to
negotiate IU and QAS. Support for this was added to
On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 07:36 -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> Howcome it works on all mainline kernels, and not -mm then? ;-)
> Did we fix an error path to detect failures, maybe?
Well, OK, it might be something to do with your drives trying to
negotiate IU and QAS. Support for this was added to
--James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (on Friday, August 05, 2005
09:24:52 -0500):
> On Thu, 2005-08-04 at 23:39 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> James, could some of the scsi core rework have caused this?
>
> Well, I don't think so. The error below:
>
>> > sdc: Unit Not Ready, sense:
--James Bottomley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (on Friday, August 05, 2005
09:24:52 -0500):
On Thu, 2005-08-04 at 23:39 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
James, could some of the scsi core rework have caused this?
Well, I don't think so. The error below:
sdc: Unit Not Ready, sense:
: Current:
On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 07:36 -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
Howcome it works on all mainline kernels, and not -mm then? ;-)
Did we fix an error path to detect failures, maybe?
Well, OK, it might be something to do with your drives trying to
negotiate IU and QAS. Support for this was added to the
14 matches
Mail list logo
