On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 08:28:37PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> Ok, since I now I'll never finish it:
> $ ll old-patch-scripts/patches/uml-fix-timers.patch
> -rw-r--r-- 1 paolo paolo 6763 2005-07-24 06:41
> old-patch-scripts/patches/uml-fix-timers.patch
>
> I'm attaching this incomplete patch. It
On Friday 02 June 2006 17:19, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 08:54:22AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > NAK. ktime_t is defined that ist must be normalized the same way as
> > timespecs. The nsec part must be >= 0 and < NSEC_PER_SEC. Fix the part
> > which is feeding non normalized va
On Friday 02 June 2006 17:13, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 09:07:33PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > Sorry for the question, but has this been sent to -stable (since it's a
> > -stable regression, it should be)? To 2.6.17 -git?
>
> It's in current git.
The patch is likely ok for -stab
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 09:07:33PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
>> Sorry for the question, but has this been sent to -stable (since it's a
>> -stable regression, it should be)? To 2.6.17 -git?
>
> It's in current git.
>
> I'm having a hard time telling when the
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 08:54:22AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> NAK. ktime_t is defined that ist must be normalized the same way as
> timespecs. The nsec part must be >= 0 and < NSEC_PER_SEC. Fix the part
> which is feeding non normalized values.
Aha, that would be me, initializing wall_to_mono
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 09:07:33PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> Sorry for the question, but has this been sent to -stable (since it's a
> -stable regression, it should be)? To 2.6.17 -git?
It's in current git.
I'm having a hard time telling when the bug was introduced. The git web
interface see
On Friday 26 May 2006 16:13, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 12:36:26PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > I believe this patch is the correct fix. Can you confirm it works for
> > you?
>
> Looks good, thanks.
>
> Jeff
Sorry for the question, but has this been sent to -stable (si
On Monday 22 May 2006 16:11, Nikola Knezevic wrote:
> Hi all,
> When I change Makefile to have -O0 instead of -O2, this is what I get
> after make ARCH=um:
There are other spots where -O0 would lead to failure; search for -O0 on the
ML, I remember that adding -finline and something else made it w
On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 23:08 -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
> The use of 64-bit additions and subtractions on something which is
> nominally a struct containing 32-bit second and nanosecond field is
> broken when a negative time is involved. When the structure is
> treated as a 64-bit integer, the increme
