> Sometimes it takes either the kernel tree or our website some time to get
> in 'sync' with the latest driver version. The latest driver version is
> 1.02.00.007.
>
> There may be DAC960 like /proc support at some point for GUI haters.
Publishing enough info to let people write a GPL non
On 19 Jun 2001, at 5:00, Stefan Traby wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 07:20:06PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Folks, I believe I have a reproducible test case which corrupts
> > > data in 2.4.5.
> >
> > 2.4.5 has an out of date 3ware driver that is short
>
> > + 1.02.00.007 - Fix possible
> Well, I do not understand how the driver is distributed.
> The actual 3ware stuff won't compile on 2.4.x, and the stuff in kernel
> is always different from 3ware releases.
The stuff in the -ac tree is directly from 3ware
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
Well, I do not understand how the driver is distributed.
The actual 3ware stuff won't compile on 2.4.x, and the stuff in kernel
is always different from 3ware releases.
The stuff in the -ac tree is directly from 3ware
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
On 19 Jun 2001, at 5:00, Stefan Traby wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 07:20:06PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
Folks, I believe I have a reproducible test case which corrupts
data in 2.4.5.
2.4.5 has an out of date 3ware driver that is short
+ 1.02.00.007 - Fix possible null pointer
Sometimes it takes either the kernel tree or our website some time to get
in 'sync' with the latest driver version. The latest driver version is
1.02.00.007.
There may be DAC960 like /proc support at some point for GUI haters.
Publishing enough info to let people write a GPL non gui
On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 07:20:06PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Folks, I believe I have a reproducible test case which corrupts data in
> > 2.4.5.
>
> 2.4.5 has an out of date 3ware driver that is short
> + 1.02.00.007 - Fix possible null pointer dereferences in tw_ioctl().
> +
On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 07:20:06PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
Folks, I believe I have a reproducible test case which corrupts data in
2.4.5.
2.4.5 has an out of date 3ware driver that is short
+ 1.02.00.007 - Fix possible null pointer dereferences in tw_ioctl().
+ Remove
On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 11:54:20PM +0400, Eugene Crosser wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> any problems since 2.4.5 was published, they seem to have surfaced
> >> immediately after I created a rather big file capturing video with
> >>
Nuther anecdote:
I was creating a big swapfile on ext2 (because 2.4.5 needs too much swap)
with dd (SCSI disk on Sym53c8-something controller) and corrupted
the partition THEN fsck would cause the kernel to panic. I thought
I had some bad hw ... the box sits on my office floor waiting
Nuther anecdote:
I was creating a big swapfile on ext2 (because 2.4.5 needs too much swap)
with dd (SCSI disk on Sym53c8-something controller) and corrupted
the partition THEN fsck would cause the kernel to panic. I thought
I had some bad hw ... the box sits on my office floor waiting
On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 11:54:20PM +0400, Eugene Crosser wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
any problems since 2.4.5 was published, they seem to have surfaced
immediately after I created a rather big file capturing video with
broadcast2000
> any problems since 2.4.5 was published, they seem to have surfaced
> immediately after I created a rather big file capturing video with
> broadcast2000 (video card is bt848). Filesystem is ext2.
Thats something I've seen reported elsehwere. The high bandwidth capture card
stuff seems to show
any problems since 2.4.5 was published, they seem to have surfaced
immediately after I created a rather big file capturing video with
broadcast2000 (video card is bt848). Filesystem is ext2.
Thats something I've seen reported elsehwere. The high bandwidth capture card
stuff seems to show up
On Tuesday, June 12, 2001 01:17:49 PM -0700 Larry McVoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Folks, I believe I have a reproducible test case which corrupts data in
> 2.4.5.
>
> We do nightly, weekly, and monthly backups by copying our entire /home
> partition on the company file server:
>
>
On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 01:17:49PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
> Folks, I believe I have a reproducible test case which corrupts data in
> 2.4.5.
Why don't you send the test case to the list? I would love to try it
out and it would be a good addition to LTP.
--
Nate Straz
On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 01:17:49PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
Folks, I believe I have a reproducible test case which corrupts data in
2.4.5.
Why don't you send the test case to the list? I would love to try it
out and it would be a good addition to LTP.
--
Nate Straz
On Tuesday, June 12, 2001 01:17:49 PM -0700 Larry McVoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Folks, I believe I have a reproducible test case which corrupts data in
2.4.5.
We do nightly, weekly, and monthly backups by copying our entire /home
partition on the company file server:
Filesystem
Folks, I believe I have a reproducible test case which corrupts data in
2.4.5.
We do nightly, weekly, and monthly backups by copying our entire /home
partition on the company file server:
FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/hda1 1.9G 1.7G 123M 93% /
Folks, I believe I have a reproducible test case which corrupts data in
2.4.5.
We do nightly, weekly, and monthly backups by copying our entire /home
partition on the company file server:
FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/hda1 1.9G 1.7G 123M 93% /
20 matches
Mail list logo
