Hi,
I just had the same problem with a 2.6.20 kernel, just after the boot,
after having launched Mozilla Firefox. The browser seemed to lag while
rendering a page, and after say 20 seconds, I got an oops.
I was *not* playing sound.
This message is repeated a HUGE amount of times in my
Hi,
I just had the same problem with a 2.6.20 kernel, just after the boot,
after having launched Mozilla Firefox. The browser seemed to lag while
rendering a page, and after say 20 seconds, I got an oops.
I was *not* playing sound.
This message is repeated a HUGE amount of times in my
Hi,
the last 10 days I have been bisecting my problem. Currenly I am here
and I have 10 commits to go:
fantasio:~/tmp/linux-2.6$ git-bisect log
git-bisect start
# bad: [fa285a3d7924a0e3782926e51f16865c5129a2f7] Linux 2.6.20
git-bisect bad fa285a3d7924a0e3782926e51f16865c5129a2f7
# bad:
Hi,
the last 10 days I have been bisecting my problem. Currenly I am here
and I have 10 commits to go:
fantasio:~/tmp/linux-2.6$ git-bisect log
git-bisect start
# bad: [fa285a3d7924a0e3782926e51f16865c5129a2f7] Linux 2.6.20
git-bisect bad fa285a3d7924a0e3782926e51f16865c5129a2f7
# bad:
On Fri 16-02-07 00:01:32, Frank Hartmann wrote:
> Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu 15-02-07 00:33:31, Frank Hartmann wrote:
> >> Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > Yes I see some correlation. Again it seems there is a problem with
> >> > buffers
> >> > attached
On Fri 16-02-07 00:01:32, Frank Hartmann wrote:
Jan Kara [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu 15-02-07 00:33:31, Frank Hartmann wrote:
Jan Kara [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes I see some correlation. Again it seems there is a problem with
buffers
attached to a page which got
On Thu 15-02-07 00:33:31, Frank Hartmann wrote:
> Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Yes I see some correlation. Again it seems there is a problem with buffers
> > attached to a page which got truncated but Private flag of the page stayed.
> > It's probably not important but just out of
On Thu 15-02-07 00:33:31, Frank Hartmann wrote:
Jan Kara [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes I see some correlation. Again it seems there is a problem with buffers
attached to a page which got truncated but Private flag of the page stayed.
It's probably not important but just out of curiosity
Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes I see some correlation. Again it seems there is a problem with buffers
> attached to a page which got truncated but Private flag of the page stayed.
> It's probably not important but just out of curiosity - do you have
> CONFIG_LBD (large block device)
On Sun 11-02-07 14:59:53, Frank Hartmann wrote:
> Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > OK, thanks for the news. Please, write me when you try out 2.6.20. Just
> > if it rings bell to someone on this list: It looks like the page had no
> > buffers but PagePrivate was set. Strange.
>
> Hi
On Sun 11-02-07 14:59:53, Frank Hartmann wrote:
Jan Kara [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, thanks for the news. Please, write me when you try out 2.6.20. Just
if it rings bell to someone on this list: It looks like the page had no
buffers but PagePrivate was set. Strange.
Hi Jan,
below
Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK, thanks for the news. Please, write me when you try out 2.6.20. Just
> if it rings bell to someone on this list: It looks like the page had no
> buffers but PagePrivate was set. Strange.
Hi Jan,
below is what I got using 2.6.20.
Is there any
Jan Kara [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, thanks for the news. Please, write me when you try out 2.6.20. Just
if it rings bell to someone on this list: It looks like the page had no
buffers but PagePrivate was set. Strange.
Hi Jan,
below is what I got using 2.6.20.
Is there any correlation
13 matches
Mail list logo
