Wait a minute while I fix the top-posting ...
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 06:51:40PM -0800, Brian Morris wrote:
> larry you need to upgrade to xorg from etch-m68k. xfree is not support
> with 2.6.2x
>
i loaded 2.6.2[1,2] and etch-m68k a couple of months ago. i wasn't
able to geet xorg working for m
larry you need to upgrade to xorg from etch-m68k. xfree is not support
with 2.6.2x
On Dec 18, 2007 5:27 AM, Larry Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 10:32:46AM +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Larry Moore wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Since we have a func
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 01:28:09PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > I used the kernel from http://linux-m68k-cvs.ubb.ca/
> > > You may keep in mind what Roman wrote about the new scheduler in .23 and
> > > may
> > > want to use .22 instead.
>
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 01:28:09PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > I used the kernel from http://linux-m68k-cvs.ubb.ca/
> > You may keep in mind what Roman wrote about the new scheduler in .23 and may
> > want to use .22 instead.
> > The problem I faced with .23 and the new SCSI driver was,
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 07:00:10AM +0100, Daniele Gratteri wrote:
> > Ingo Juergensmann ha scritto:
> >> Oooops... that's not really an improvement... anyway, I've chosen 2.6.23
> >> as it was the latest and the easiest to checkout from the m68k cvs
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 07:00:10AM +0100, Daniele Gratteri wrote:
> Ingo Juergensmann ha scritto:
>> Oooops... that's not really an improvement... anyway, I've chosen 2.6.23
>> as it was the latest and the easiest to checkout from the m68k cvs for me.
>> And it contained the SCSI patches for Warp
Ingo Juergensmann ha scritto:
Oooops... that's not really an improvement... anyway, I've chosen
2.6.23 as
it was the latest and the easiest to checkout from the m68k cvs for
me. And
it contained the SCSI patches for WarpEngine and A4000T SCSI
Is a "generic" Amiga kernel, based on 2.6.23, av
Hi,
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 11:27:42PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
>
> > > I've upgraded the following machines lately to kernel 2.6.23-m68k and
> > > etch-m68k:
> > You might want to test 2.6.22 as well. The new scheduler hasn't exactly
> > been
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 10:32:46AM +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Larry Moore wrote:
>
> >
> > Since we have a functioning framebuffer in 2.2.25-mac, is here a
> > technical reasn why it couldn't be copy-pasted into 2.6.23?
> >
>
> The reason is internal kernel APIs. But t
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 02:11:41AM +0100, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> > > > E.g. for Amiga native graphics, the main issue is that current xorg
> > > > doesn't support bitplanes (AFAIK). The same is true for Atari.
> > >
> > > what's the alternative if there's no kernel framebuffer?
> >
> > If there's
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 11:27:42PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
> > I've upgraded the following machines lately to kernel 2.6.23-m68k and
> > etch-m68k:
> You might want to test 2.6.22 as well. The new scheduler hasn't exactly
> been an improvement for us, here are some lmbench numbers:
> Context
Hi,
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Finn Thain wrote:
> Is there a tunable that might reduce the number of context switches?
Only as a debug option, which would increase the cost even further.
> (I'm
> guessing that your stats reflect more switches, not more expensive
> switching.)
No, it's all the 64b
> > > E.g. for Amiga native graphics, the main issue is that current xorg
> > > doesn't support bitplanes (AFAIK). The same is true for Atari.
> >
> > what's the alternative if there's no kernel framebuffer?
>
> If there's no kernel frame buffer, you won't have a console on
> Linux/m68k. So you fir
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
>
> > I've upgraded the following machines lately to kernel 2.6.23-m68k and
> > etch-m68k:
>
> You might want to test 2.6.22 as well. The new scheduler hasn't exactly
> been an improvement for u
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Larry Moore wrote:
>
> Since we have a functioning framebuffer in 2.2.25-mac, is here a
> technical reasn why it couldn't be copy-pasted into 2.6.23?
>
The reason is internal kernel APIs. But there's no need since Linux 2.6.23
should have a working framebuffer (and consol
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 05:16:39PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Larry Moore wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 02:50:18PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 02:19:42PM +0100, Ingo Juerge
Hi,
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> I've upgraded the following machines lately to kernel 2.6.23-m68k and
> etch-m68k:
You might want to test 2.6.22 as well. The new scheduler hasn't exactly
been an improvement for us, here are some lmbench numbers:
Context switching - times i
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Larry Moore wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 02:50:18PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 02:19:42PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 05:41:05AM -0500, Larry Moore
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 02:50:18PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 02:19:42PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 05:41:05AM -0500, Larry Moore wrote:
> > > > > I've upgraded the following mac
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 02:19:42PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 05:41:05AM -0500, Larry Moore wrote:
> > > > I've upgraded the following machines lately to kernel 2.6.23-m68k and
> > > > etch-m68k:
> > > I tried 2.6
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 02:19:42PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 05:41:05AM -0500, Larry Moore wrote:
>
> > > I've upgraded the following machines lately to kernel 2.6.23-m68k and
> > > etch-m68k:
> > I tried 2.6.21 and .22, but reverted to 2.2.25 because I couldn't ge
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 05:41:05AM -0500, Larry Moore wrote:
> > I've upgraded the following machines lately to kernel 2.6.23-m68k and
> > etch-m68k:
> I tried 2.6.21 and .22, but reverted to 2.2.25 because I couldn't get X
> running.
Well, I'm not running X on those machines as those are auto
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 10:43:03AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I've upgraded the following machines lately to kernel 2.6.23-m68k and
> etch-m68k:
>
> - Spice
> - Vivaldi
> - Akire
> - Arrakis
>
> Just FYI...
>
> --
> Ciao...//Fon: 0381-2744150
> I
23 matches
Mail list logo
