On Sunday 26 December 2010 12:34:47 Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 12:04:25PM +0200, Matthias Breier wrote:
> > > > I'm not sure how to proceed in my case. How can I test if the changes
> > > > mentioned in the upstream bug report (
> > > > http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.
On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 12:04:25PM +0200, Matthias Breier wrote:
> > > I'm not sure how to proceed in my case. How can I test if the changes
> > > mentioned in the upstream bug report (
> > > http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25510 ) have reached the
> > > Squeeze's current kernel version
> > I'm not sure how to proceed in my case. How can I test if the changes
> > mentioned in the upstream bug report (
> > http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25510 ) have reached the
> > Squeeze's current kernel version?
>
> I'm pretty sure they are. If your issue is still present in 2.6.3
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 00:50:24 +0200, Matthias Breier wrote:
> I'm not sure how to proceed in my case. How can I test if the changes
> mentioned in the
> upstream bug report ( http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25510 )
> have reached the
> Squeeze's current kernel version?
>
I'm pr
Package: linux-source-2.6.32
Version: 2.6.32-18
Severity: serious
--- Please enter the report below this line. ---
Hello everyone,
I've just realized that I still use the kernel parameter "mem=3500M" at boot
time. With
this configuration everything works fine (besides the missing 500MB of RAM
5 matches
Mail list logo
