On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 03:15:38PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 22:49:27 +0100
>
> >
> > * Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 09:39:19PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > * Greg KH <[EMAIL
* David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > so just to reiterate, to make sure we have the same plans: lets
> > leave v2.6.22 and earlier kernels alone - and lets strive for the
> > latest patches and code for v2.6.23 (and v2.6.24, evidently).
>
> I've validated that those patches make
From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 22:49:27 +0100
>
> * Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 09:39:19PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > but we only have cpu_clock() from v2.6.23
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:49:27PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 09:39:19PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > but we only have cpu_clock() from v2.6.23 onwards - so we
* Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 09:39:19PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > but we only have cpu_clock() from v2.6.23 onwards - so we should not
> > > > apply the original patch to v2.6.22. (we should not have
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 09:39:19PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > but we only have cpu_clock() from v2.6.23 onwards - so we should not
> > > apply the original patch to v2.6.22. (we should not have applied
> > > your patch that started the mess to
* Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > but we only have cpu_clock() from v2.6.23 onwards - so we should not
> > apply the original patch to v2.6.22. (we should not have applied
> > your patch that started the mess to begin with - but that's another
> > matter.)
>
> Well, I can easily back
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 07:05:25AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Greg KH wrote:
> > > Can you try applying the patch below to see if that solves the problem
> > > for you?
> > >
> >
> > I don't think this patch will help; it only has
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 07:08:08AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Chuck Ebbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 11/17/2007 07:55 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Great, thanks for tracking this down.
> > >>
> > >> Ingo, this corrisponds to
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 07:05:25AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
Can you try applying the patch below to see if that solves the problem
for you?
I don't think this patch will help; it only has cosmetic changes in
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 07:08:08AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Chuck Ebbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/17/2007 07:55 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Great, thanks for tracking this down.
Ingo, this corrisponds to changeset
* Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but we only have cpu_clock() from v2.6.23 onwards - so we should not
apply the original patch to v2.6.22. (we should not have applied
your patch that started the mess to begin with - but that's another
matter.)
Well, I can easily back that one
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 09:39:19PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but we only have cpu_clock() from v2.6.23 onwards - so we should not
apply the original patch to v2.6.22. (we should not have applied
your patch that started the mess to begin with - but
* Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 09:39:19PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but we only have cpu_clock() from v2.6.23 onwards - so we should not
apply the original patch to v2.6.22. (we should not have applied
your
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:49:27PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 09:39:19PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but we only have cpu_clock() from v2.6.23 onwards - so we should not
apply
From: Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 22:49:27 +0100
* Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 09:39:19PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but we only have cpu_clock() from v2.6.23 onwards - so we should not
* David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so just to reiterate, to make sure we have the same plans: lets
leave v2.6.22 and earlier kernels alone - and lets strive for the
latest patches and code for v2.6.23 (and v2.6.24, evidently).
I've validated that those patches make 2.6.23 behave
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 03:15:38PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
From: Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 22:49:27 +0100
* Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 09:39:19PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Chuck Ebbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/17/2007 07:55 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Great, thanks for tracking this down.
> >>
> >> Ingo, this corrisponds to changeset
> >> a115d5caca1a2905ba7a32b408a6042b20179aaa in mainline. Is that patch
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > Can you try applying the patch below to see if that solves the problem
> > for you?
> >
>
> I don't think this patch will help; it only has cosmetic changes in
> addition to the original message printing fix. I think it
Greg KH wrote:
> Can you try applying the patch below to see if that solves the problem
> for you?
>
I don't think this patch will help; it only has cosmetic changes in
addition to the original message printing fix. I think it also needs
change a3b13c23f186ecb57204580cc1f2dbe9c284953a:
diff
On 11/17/2007 07:55 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Great, thanks for tracking this down.
>>
>> Ingo, this corrisponds to changeset
>> a115d5caca1a2905ba7a32b408a6042b20179aaa in mainline. Is that patch
>> incorrect? Should this patch in the -stable tree be
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 04:34:56PM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > Great, thanks for tracking this down.
> >
> > Ingo, this corrisponds to changeset
> > a115d5caca1a2905ba7a32b408a6042b20179aaa in mainline. Is that patch
> > incorrect? Should this patch in the -stable tree
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 04:34:56PM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
Great, thanks for tracking this down.
Ingo, this corrisponds to changeset
a115d5caca1a2905ba7a32b408a6042b20179aaa in mainline. Is that patch
incorrect? Should this patch in the -stable tree be
On 11/17/2007 07:55 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Great, thanks for tracking this down.
Ingo, this corrisponds to changeset
a115d5caca1a2905ba7a32b408a6042b20179aaa in mainline. Is that patch
incorrect? Should this patch in the -stable tree be reverted?
Greg KH wrote:
Can you try applying the patch below to see if that solves the problem
for you?
I don't think this patch will help; it only has cosmetic changes in
addition to the original message printing fix. I think it also needs
change a3b13c23f186ecb57204580cc1f2dbe9c284953a:
diff -r
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
Can you try applying the patch below to see if that solves the problem
for you?
I don't think this patch will help; it only has cosmetic changes in
addition to the original message printing fix. I think it also needs
* Chuck Ebbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/17/2007 07:55 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Great, thanks for tracking this down.
Ingo, this corrisponds to changeset
a115d5caca1a2905ba7a32b408a6042b20179aaa in mainline. Is that patch
incorrect?
* Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Great, thanks for tracking this down.
>
> Ingo, this corrisponds to changeset
> a115d5caca1a2905ba7a32b408a6042b20179aaa in mainline. Is that patch
> incorrect? Should this patch in the -stable tree be reverted?
hm, there are no such problems in .24
Greg KH wrote:
> Great, thanks for tracking this down.
>
> Ingo, this corrisponds to changeset
> a115d5caca1a2905ba7a32b408a6042b20179aaa in mainline. Is that patch
> incorrect? Should this patch in the -stable tree be reverted?
>
Hm, I've never observed a problem with this in mainline.
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 08:05:33PM +, David wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 07:21:35PM +0100, Javier Kohen wrote:
> >
> >> I upgraded today from 2.6.23 to 2.6.23.8 and started seeing a lot of
> >> these in the logs:
> >>
> >
> > Can you see if the problem showed up
Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 07:21:35PM +0100, Javier Kohen wrote:
>
>> I upgraded today from 2.6.23 to 2.6.23.8 and started seeing a lot of
>> these in the logs:
>>
>
> Can you see if the problem showed up in 2.6.23.2 or .3 to help narrow
> this down?
>
This is the culprit,
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 07:21:35PM +0100, Javier Kohen wrote:
> I upgraded today from 2.6.23 to 2.6.23.8 and started seeing a lot of
> these in the logs:
Can you see if the problem showed up in 2.6.23.2 or .3 to help narrow
this down?
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 07:21:35PM +0100, Javier Kohen wrote:
I upgraded today from 2.6.23 to 2.6.23.8 and started seeing a lot of
these in the logs:
Can you see if the problem showed up in 2.6.23.2 or .3 to help narrow
this down?
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
Greg KH wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 07:21:35PM +0100, Javier Kohen wrote:
I upgraded today from 2.6.23 to 2.6.23.8 and started seeing a lot of
these in the logs:
Can you see if the problem showed up in 2.6.23.2 or .3 to help narrow
this down?
This is the culprit, reverting
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 08:05:33PM +, David wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 07:21:35PM +0100, Javier Kohen wrote:
I upgraded today from 2.6.23 to 2.6.23.8 and started seeing a lot of
these in the logs:
Can you see if the problem showed up in 2.6.23.2 or .3
Greg KH wrote:
Great, thanks for tracking this down.
Ingo, this corrisponds to changeset
a115d5caca1a2905ba7a32b408a6042b20179aaa in mainline. Is that patch
incorrect? Should this patch in the -stable tree be reverted?
Hm, I've never observed a problem with this in mainline.
Ah. The
* Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Great, thanks for tracking this down.
Ingo, this corrisponds to changeset
a115d5caca1a2905ba7a32b408a6042b20179aaa in mainline. Is that patch
incorrect? Should this patch in the -stable tree be reverted?
hm, there are no such problems in .24 and the
38 matches
Mail list logo
