On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 04:44 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> right - _finally_ i've encountered a requirement to upgrade a 2nd
> system that has lvm2 and (in this 2nd case 2.6.18-486) a linux kernel
> image, and have encountered the *exact* same problem as is in bugs
> 636123 and 638896
right - _finally_ i've encountered a requirement to upgrade a 2nd
system that has lvm2 and (in this 2nd case 2.6.18-486) a linux kernel
image, and have encountered the *exact* same problem as is in bugs
636123 and 638896. this time, however, i was anticipating that
something might go wrong, so was
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> PICCORO McKAY Lenz wrote:
>> but what about squeeze brand 2.6.32, this fails too!
>
> Actually, we don't care about 2.6.39 at all, except when it is relevant
> to fixing 2.6.32 or 3.x.
Ah, sorry, that was less helpful than it should have been. I didn't
actually answer yo
On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 03:22:17PM -0430, PICCORO McKAY Lenz wrote:
> err currently i'm prefer stable.. this trend for lasted software its a
> windoze think
>
> i' talking ab out stable kernel bug, what about that?
[...]
I'm asking you to test 3.0, to see whether the bug has been fixed
upstream.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> PICCORO McKAY Lenz wrote:
>
>> i will test again, currently 2.6.39 works well, more stable and do not
>> hang too much,
>
> ... when you add the "acpi=off" boot-time parameter. I wouldn't call
> that working.
ok obviously this its not the i
PICCORO McKAY Lenz wrote:
> i will test again, currently 2.6.39 works well, more stable and do not
> hang too much,
... when you add the "acpi=off" boot-time parameter. I wouldn't call
that working.
> but what about squeeze brand 2.6.32, this fails too!
Actually, we don't care about 2.6.39 at
ok thanks,
i will test again, currently 2.6.39 works well, more stable and do not
hang too much,
but what about squeeze brand 2.6.32, this fails too!
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> PICCORO McKAY Lenz wrote:
>
> > i' talking ab out stable kernel bug, what abou
Hi,
PICCORO McKAY Lenz wrote:
> i' talking ab out stable kernel bug, what about that?
A 3.x kernel (to help us debug, not as a long-term solution) should
not require any dependencies except for linux-base and initramfs-tools
from outside squeeze.
[...]
> but acpi also fail with 2.6.39 too,
> an
err currently i'm prefer stable.. this trend for lasted software its a
windoze think
i' talking ab out stable kernel bug, what about that?
i'm running 2.6.39, quite more stable, but previosly i update alsa state of
mixer, and also install a few packages..but acpi also fail with 2.6.39 too,
and wh
On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 01:34:30PM -0430, PICCORO McKAY Lenz wrote:
> Package: linux-2.6
> Version: 2.6.38-5~bpo60+1
[...]
What about 3.0 (currently in testing and unstable)?
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking.
Package: linux-2.6
Version: 3.0.0-3
Severity: important
Tags: upstream
Hello,
When I try to execute:
ifconfig eth0 mtu 4000 up
or
ifconfig eth0 mtu 7198 up
my nic stops working and changing back to mtu 1500 does not help.
To use my nic again I have to execute:
rmmod jme
modprome jme
and the the c
Package: linux-2.6
Version: 2.6.38-5~bpo60+1
Justification: breaks the whole system
Severity: critical
Tags: d-i upstream
The system (independient of kernel even backport version or oficial ) hangs,
and stops,
i investigated with dmesg, and so then found this trace :
irq 10: nobody cared (try boo
Seconded. Also reported in [1]. The status of this issue is also the
same in Wheezy's linux-image-3.0.0-1-amd64 and experimental's
linux-image-3.1.0-rc7-amd64_3.1.0~rc7-1~experimental.1_amd64.deb
I haven't been able to figure out if enabling CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP adds
any overhead at all. Are there o
On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 03:29:50AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 03:51 +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> > Package: linux-2.6
> > Version: 2.6.32-35
> > Severity: normal
> >
> > The stack trace can be seen below; if it matters, note that the machine
> > a) is running under KVM
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> # hangs in "processors" test of pm_test (i.e., offlining or onlining
> # nonboot cpus). Waiting for more data from John upstream. Many
> # thanks to John and Uwe for their work so far.
> forwarded 643301 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.rt.us
On 28/09/11 11:09, John Hughes wrote:
I think you're right about the problems now being userspace.
I feel that the "hang after thaw" problems I'm seeing are caused by
krb5 - it seems to like to get itself into a situation where it has no
krb5 ticket so it can't access my home directory which
Package: nfs-common
Version: 1:1.2.5-2
Severity: important
Dear Maintainer,
I have found a bug on upgrading nfs-common that might be nfs-common
init script header or insserv related:
* What led up to the situation?
Upgrading nfs-common when nfs-common and (!) rpcbind is disabled in
insserv.
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> # Taking some bugs off the radar.
> #
> # Bug: http://bugs.debian.org/538158
> # Submitter: Arcady Genkin
> # Submitter: Juan Miguel Corral Cano
> # Summary: [lenny] soft lockup in default_idle
> # Status: waiting on input from submitters
> tags
Sep 26 07:26:57 srv03044 kernel: [ 373.475130] Pid: 5200, comm: nmbd
Not tainted 2.6.32-5-vserver-amd64 #1
Sep 26 07:26:57 srv03044 kernel: [ 373.475131] Call Trace:
Sep 26 07:26:57 srv03044 kernel: [ 373.475135] [] ?
udp_sendmsg+0x5b9/0x69c
Sep 26 07:26:57 srv03044 kernel: [ 373.475137] [] ?
19 matches
Mail list logo
