Re: Atari TT

2012-01-08 Thread schmitz
Finn, I booted Linux 3.1-rc5 with a BusyBox initramfs on a 4 MB PowerBook recently. I had to create minimal configs for both, but it did indeed boot to a shell prompt. Can you provide that ramdisk for this sort of tests? Over on linux-m68k, Alan has got past the framebuffer problem now, but

Re: [PATCH 1/2] topology: Check for missing CPU devices

2012-01-08 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 02:47 +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Sun, 2012-01-08 at 16:18 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Ok, both of the patches look sane to me, but it would really be nice > > to hear from somebody with the actual affected architectures, and get > > a tested-by. > > > > Testing it

Re: [PATCH 1/2] topology: Check for missing CPU devices

2012-01-08 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Sun, 2012-01-08 at 17:29 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 5:06 PM, richard -rw- weinberger > wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:18 AM, Linus Torvalds > > wrote: > >> Ok, both of the patches look sane to me, but it would really be nice > >> to hear from somebody with the a

Re: [PATCH 1/2] topology: Check for missing CPU devices

2012-01-08 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Sun, 2012-01-08 at 16:18 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Ok, both of the patches look sane to me, but it would really be nice > to hear from somebody with the actual affected architectures, and get > a tested-by. > > Testing it on hacked-up x86 sounds fine, but doesn't quite have the > same kind

Re: [PATCH 1/2] topology: Check for missing CPU devices

2012-01-08 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 5:06 PM, richard -rw- weinberger wrote: > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:18 AM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: >> Ok, both of the patches look sane to me, but it would really be nice >> to hear from somebody with the actual affected architectures, and get >> a tested-by. > > UML is affe

Re: [PATCH 1/2] topology: Check for missing CPU devices

2012-01-08 Thread richard -rw- weinberger
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:18 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Ok, both of the patches look sane to me, but it would really be nice > to hear from somebody with the actual affected architectures, and get > a tested-by. UML is affected: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/1/8/186 I wasted an hour finding out why

Re: [PATCH 1/2] topology: Check for missing CPU devices

2012-01-08 Thread Linus Torvalds
Ok, both of the patches look sane to me, but it would really be nice to hear from somebody with the actual affected architectures, and get a tested-by. Testing it on hacked-up x86 sounds fine, but doesn't quite have the same kind of "yes, this fixes the actual problem" feel to it. Also, can you c

[PATCH 1/2] topology: Check for missing CPU devices

2012-01-08 Thread Ben Hutchings
Commit ccbc60d3e19a1b6ae66ca0d89b3da02dde62088b ('topology: Provide CPU topology in sysfs in !SMP configurations') causes a crash at boot on a several architectures. The topology sysfs code assumes that there is a CPU device for each online CPU whereas some architectures that do not support SMP or

Re: [m68k] partial success but does not boot: 3.2~rc7

2012-01-08 Thread Greg KH
On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 11:53:45PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Sun, 2012-01-01 at 23:27 +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Sun, 2012-01-01 at 21:16 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > [...] > > > • work and fail > > > > > > This is for debian-68k, linux-68k and debian-kernel: > > > > > > ARAnyM

New debian-ports archive signing key (2012)

2012-01-08 Thread Aurelien Jarno
Hi, The 2011 debian-ports archive signing key will expire at the end of the month. I've created the 2012 one, uploaded it to the keyservers, and uploaded a new version of the debian-ports-archive-keyring package. This key is already used to sign the archive in addition to the 2011 one, which will