Kingsley G. Morse Jr. wrote:
> At the moment, it seems to me that bug#582487 and
> #582088 are different, and I humbly suggest
> un-merging them.
You didn't report bug#582487 in the first place!
Yes, you tripped the same assertion that Thiemo did. In your case, it
seems it was due to a hardware
Thank you for sharing your detailed thoughts.
I may owe you an apology for being too terse in my
bug report.
It seems to me that it may be important to
explain:
1.) I encountered a stack trace like the one
in bug#582487 after adding RAM, and then
pretty much every time I booted the c
Hi Jonathan,
Happy holidays.
I checked out the bug#582088 saga that you
mentioned.
I happened to notice it has a different stack
trace than bug 582487.
If I asked you nicely, would you please elaborate
on why you think they're the same bug?
Thanks,
Kingsley
On 12/22/11 05:08, Jonathan Nieder
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 582487 - moreinfo
Bug #582487 [linux-2.6] linux-image-2.6.32-5-686: bad page state
Removed tag(s) moreinfo.
> merge 582088 582487
Bug#582088: [Eee PC 1000HG, fuse] symptoms of memory corruption
Bug#582487: linux-image-2.6.32-5-686: bad page s
tags 582487 - moreinfo
merge 582088 582487
quit
Hi Kingsley,
Kingsley G. Morse Jr. wrote:
> For what it's worth, I seem to have found a way to
> work around this bug.
Having the same error message does not imply having the same bug.
The bug you're responding to looks like another episode in th
For what it's worth, I seem to have found a way to
work around this bug.
Here are the details.
I have an MSI (Micro Star) MS-6712 (KT4V)
motherboard.
It was running version 2.6.32-35 of
package linux-image-2.6.32-5-686 in squeeze.
I wanted to upgrade its RAM from about half a
gigabyte on two st
6 matches
Mail list logo
