Processed: tagging 605824

2010-12-03 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > tags 605824 + moreinfo Bug #605824 [initramfs-tools] initramfs-tools: mkinitramfs fails to derrive root block device on partitioned MD RAID (/dev/md1p3 -> /sys/block/md1/md1p3) Added tag(s) moreinfo. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please con

Bug#605824: initramfs-tools: mkinitramfs fails to derrive root block device on partitioned MD RAID (/dev/md1p3 -> /sys/block/md1/md1p3)

2010-12-03 Thread maximilian attems
On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 09:24:00PM +0100, Cestmir wrote: > > I've moved fresh squeeze installation onto RAID setup (md0: unpartitioned > RAID1 with /boot; md1: partitioned RAID10f2 with root fs on /dev/md1p3). > After that, mkinitramfs is no longer able to correctly derrive /sys/block/... > path

Processed: Re: Bug#605800: (no subject)

2010-12-03 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > reassign 605800 linux-2.6 2.6.32-28 Bug #605800 [kvm] [KVM] AQEMU/KVM segmentation fault after upgrade. Libc related. Bug reassigned from package 'kvm' to 'linux-2.6'. Bug No longer marked as found in versions qemu-kvm/0.12.5+dfsg-5. Bug #605800

Bug#604824: linux-2.6: problems with ata disk interface: temporary freezes

2010-12-03 Thread Fulvio Ciriaco
Hallo, I have run 1day after booting pci=nomsi and 1 day after booting lapic. I am now running after booting noapic. I do not notice any difference, lspci is identical except for IRQ assignment and dmesg does not show trace of errors. Also, I could not notice any important difference in dmesg. Fulv

Bug#605824: initramfs-tools: mkinitramfs fails to derrive root block device on partitioned MD RAID (/dev/md1p3 -> /sys/block/md1/md1p3)

2010-12-03 Thread Cestmir
Package: initramfs-tools Version: 0.98.5 Severity: important I've moved fresh squeeze installation onto RAID setup (md0: unpartitioned RAID1 with /boot; md1: partitioned RAID10f2 with root fs on /dev/md1p3). After that, mkinitramfs is no longer able to correctly derrive /sys/block/... path for

Re: [PATCH] kbuild, deb-pkg: support overriding userland architecture

2010-12-03 Thread Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen
Hi Max, On 12/03/2010 05:48 PM, maximilian attems wrote: > On Sat, 06 Nov 2010, Asbjoern Sloth Toennesen wrote: >> Usefull if building for sparc64 userland, because the >> sparc and sparc64 userlands use the same 64-bit kernel, >> making it impossible to always select the correct userland >> archi

Re: [PATCH] kbuild, deb-pkg: support overriding userland architecture

2010-12-03 Thread maximilian attems
hello Asbjoern, On Sat, 06 Nov 2010, Asbjoern Sloth Toennesen wrote: > Usefull if building for sparc64 userland, because the > sparc and sparc64 userlands use the same 64-bit kernel, > making it impossible to always select the correct userland > architecture for the resulting debian package. > >

Bug#605090: linux-2.6: [RFC] Add a grsec featureset to Debian kernels

2010-12-03 Thread Yves-Alexis Perez
On dim., 2010-11-28 at 10:44 +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > On sam., 2010-11-27 at 23:56 +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > I suggest you put it in a separate package e.g. linux-grsec-base and > > have the image packages depend on or recommend it. > > Good point, especially if there's some work to

Bug#602109: Acknowledgement ([linux-2.6] 1 multicall(s) failed: cpu 0)

2010-12-03 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 12:33 +0100, Jan Wagner wrote: > Hi Ben, > > thanks for your reply. > > On Friday 03 December 2010 06:29:56 Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 22:00 +0100, Jan Wagner wrote: > > Please can you log information about the state of tasks by running: > > > > echo t >

Bug#605787: linux-image-2.6.32-bpo.5-openvz-amd64: openvz checkpointing end resuming doenst work due to problems with file access right

2010-12-03 Thread Ulrich Goettlich
Package: linux-2.6 Version: 2.6.32-28~bpo50+1 Severity: normal Full Bug report and patches to fix the Bug can be found at: http://bugzilla.openvz.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1603 Because this is a backport kernel the bug should also occur on squeeze systems. Regards, Ulrich Goettlich -- System Inform

Re: [PATCH] Kbuild: kconfig: Verbose version of --listnewconfig

2010-12-03 Thread Michal Marek
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 04:59:57AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > If the KBUILD_VERBOSE environment variable is set to non-zero, show > the default values of new symbols and not just their names. > > Based on work by Bastian Blank and > maximilian attems . > > Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings > ---

Bug#602109: Acknowledgement ([linux-2.6] 1 multicall(s) failed: cpu 0)

2010-12-03 Thread Jan Wagner
Hi Ben, thanks for your reply. On Friday 03 December 2010 06:29:56 Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 22:00 +0100, Jan Wagner wrote: > Please can you log information about the state of tasks by running: > > echo t > /proc/sysrq-trigger > > then send the messages for the modprobe tasks

Bug#603632: [Xen-devel] PVops domain 0 crash on NUMA system only Node==1 present (Was: Re: Bug#603632: linux-image-2.6.32-5-xen-amd64: Linux kernel 2.6.32/xen/amd64 booting fine on bare metal, but not

2010-12-03 Thread Vincent Caron
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 08:51 +, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 23:47 +, Vincent Caron wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 22:18 +, Ian Campbell wrote: > > > On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 22:12 +, Ian Campbell wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 18:52 +, Ian Campbell wrote: >

Bug#603632: [Xen-devel] PVops domain 0 crash on NUMA system only Node==1 present (Was: Re: Bug#603632: linux-image-2.6.32-5-xen-amd64: Linux kernel 2.6.32/xen/amd64 booting fine on bare metal, but not

2010-12-03 Thread Ian Campbell
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 08:52 +, Ian Campbell wrote: > > > IanC: it looks like passing a node id of "-1" is the correct way to > > say "I don't care". > > I thought so too but convinced myself from staring at the code that it > wouldn't work in this case -- I'll double check before I resubmit.

Bug#603632: [Xen-devel] PVops domain 0 crash on NUMA system only Node==1 present (Was: Re: Bug#603632: linux-image-2.6.32-5-xen-amd64: Linux kernel 2.6.32/xen/amd64 booting fine on bare metal, but not

2010-12-03 Thread Ian Campbell
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 08:52 +, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 00:12 +, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > What about "numa=fake=1"? I think that should force it to create a > > single NUMA node. > > Is there any advantage to this vs numa=noacpi? Do they effectively end > up doing

Bug#525220: End Of Year Promo!

2010-12-03 Thread Dove Foundation
The DOVE Foundation. 69 Chapel Street, London W1B 4DA. United Kingdom. Dear Recipient, RE: Grant Notification. This is an official notification to you by the board of trustees of The DOVE Foundation as one of the recipients of cash Grant Award for your personal business and community development.

Bug#603632: [Xen-devel] PVops domain 0 crash on NUMA system only Node==1 present (Was: Re: Bug#603632: linux-image-2.6.32-5-xen-amd64: Linux kernel 2.6.32/xen/amd64 booting fine on bare metal, but not

2010-12-03 Thread Ian Campbell
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 00:27 +, Vincent Caron wrote: > On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 16:12 -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > On 12/02/2010 03:47 PM, Vincent Caron wrote: > > > It just happens that your kernel above (2.6.32-27+numa1) boots fine > > > under hypervisor _when_ passed 'numa=noacpi'. Ye

Bug#603632: [Xen-devel] PVops domain 0 crash on NUMA system only Node==1 present (Was: Re: Bug#603632: linux-image-2.6.32-5-xen-amd64: Linux kernel 2.6.32/xen/amd64 booting fine on bare metal, but not

2010-12-03 Thread Ian Campbell
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 00:12 +, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > What about "numa=fake=1"? I think that should force it to create a > single NUMA node. Is there any advantage to this vs numa=noacpi? Do they effectively end up doing the same thing? > IanC: it looks like passing a node id of "-1" i

Bug#603632: [Xen-devel] PVops domain 0 crash on NUMA system only Node==1 present (Was: Re: Bug#603632: linux-image-2.6.32-5-xen-amd64: Linux kernel 2.6.32/xen/amd64 booting fine on bare metal, but not

2010-12-03 Thread Ian Campbell
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 23:47 +, Vincent Caron wrote: > On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 22:18 +, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 22:12 +, Ian Campbell wrote: > > > On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 18:52 +, Ian Campbell wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 11:51 +, Ian Campbell wrote: >