Hi Ben,
Thanks for the mail.
Is there any means by which I can identify if the notification is for IP
address (or) netmask address for RTM_NEWADDR?
Thanks and regards,
Sathya
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 3:59 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 23:40 +0530, sathya sai wrote:
> [...]
>
> "MM" == Moritz Muehlenhoff writes:
MM> Does this still occur with more recent kernel, e.g. 2.6.30?
Yes,
# grep sdb /var/log/syslog
Oct 3 06:42:05 jidanni2 kernel: [ 5888.574277] sd 2:0:0:1: [sdb] Assuming
drive cache: write through
Oct 3 06:42:05 jidanni2 kernel: [ 5888.581090] sd 2:0:0:1
> "MM" == Moritz Muehlenhoff writes:
MM> Can you reproduce this on a more recent Linux kernel?
I don't know. I suppose I should have included a exact test case, but
that would have been very complicated. So I thought somebody would know
at a glance...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ker
2009/10/2 Moritz Muehlenhoff :
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 09:59:27PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>> Package: linux-image-2.6.29-1-amd64
>> Version: 2.6.29-3
>> Severity: minor
>>
>>
>> There is an error logged in dmesg about sensor driver:
>>
>> [ 15.187439] ACPI: I/O resource w83627ehf [0x295-0
Your message dated Sat, 3 Oct 2009 01:08:20 +0200
with message-id <20091002230820.ga4...@galadriel.inutil.org>
and subject line Re: linux-image-2.6.29-1-amd64: sensor driver error
has caused the Debian Bug report #528268,
regarding linux-image-2.6.29-1-amd64: sensor driver error
to be marked as don
On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 23:40 +0530, sathya sai wrote:
[...]
> But, when I reconfigure my network interface with the below ifconfig
> command, I am shocked that the above netlink program is giving me two
> notifications with RTM_NEWADDR (new address being added to an
> interface)
>
> I am not sure w
Dear Moritz,
Please see comments in
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14295
:
> This looks more like a feature request than a bug report to me. The right
> address for that kind of discussion would be on the linux-...@vger.kernel.org
> mailing list, not bugzilla.
> Right, a good first s
Your message dated Fri, 2 Oct 2009 15:17:47 -0600
with message-id <20091002211747.gc26...@lackof.org>
and subject line closing
has caused the Debian Bug report #538357,
regarding Debian boot hangs after kernel upgrade
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 09:34:51PM +0200, Patrick Maier wrote:
> Hi,
>> Either way, please file this upstream:
>> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/
>
> Ok so I've created an account there but I don't know how to report a bug,
> and in what category that goes. Memory Management, IO/Storage, Drivers
> a
I booted with kernel 2.6.26-1-686 instead of kernel 2.6.26-2-686
Same crash happened, but I was able to catch folliwing trace at the remote
syslog:
kernel: [ 1393.297389] kernel BUG at mm/vmscan.c:725!
...hope this helps!
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 549335 linux-2.6 2.6.30-6
Bug #549335 [xserver-xorg-video-r128] xorg: DRI/DRM hangs machine for ati/r128
driver (squeeze;powerpc)
Bug reassigned from package 'xserver-xorg-video-r128' to 'linux-2.6'.
Bug #549335 [linux-2.6] xorg: DRI/DRM
Hello Debian forum,
This is Sathya and am presently using debian etch platform as my
development.
I am using program which creates a netlink sockets and registers for a IPv4
address notifications on a interface.
#include
#incl
reassign 549335 linux-2.6 2.6.30-6
close 549335 2.6.30-7
kthxbye
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 13:31:36 -0400, Jeffrey B. Green wrote:
> [ 59.363422] [drm] Initialized drm 1.1.0 20060810
> [ 59.400604] [drm] Initialized r128 2.5.0 20030725 for :00:10.0 on
> minor 0
> [ 59.484082] agpgart-uni
On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 12:54:03PM +0200, Patrick Maier wrote:
> Hi,
> I've [...] tried to build a new kernel (2.6.30) [...] with High
> Memory Support 64G.
> But after a reboot there is a kernel panic
> With "High Memory Support" set to 4G the kernel works fine.
Tough to say,
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> I've just looked into this old bug and I don't understand why you reopened
> it. What specifically needs to be changed in your opinion wrt the linux-2.6
> source package?
I don't know. I originally submitted this against kernel-package,
because that didn't work for m
15 matches
Mail list logo
