Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 647900 src:linux
Bug #647900 [linux-2.6] linux-image-3.0.0-1-sparc64-smp: Server fails to boot
with illegal instruction on SunFire v490
Bug reassigned from package 'linux-2.6' to 'src:linux'.
No longer marked as found in versions linux-2
reassign 647900 src:linux
thanks
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 01:22:12PM +0100, Biblioteka UR wrote:
> Nothing has changed in the topic?
> I have the latest linux-image-3.1.0-1-sparc64-smp and the same problem.
> SunFire v490 is running well with linux-image-3.1.0-1-sparc64 (non smp).
Does this work
failure on Sparc SMP in Linux 3.0
Mariusz at Biblioteka UR reports this failure in a new Debian installation on a
SunFire v490 system:
> [0.00] Linux version 3.0.0-1-sparc64-smp (Debian 3.0.0-3)
> (b...@decadent.org.uk) (gcc version 4.5.3 (Debian 4.5.3-8) ) #1 SMP Sat Aug
> 27 19:
Mariusz at Biblioteka UR reports this failure in a new Debian
installation on a SunFire v490 system:
> [0.00] Linux version 3.0.0-1-sparc64-smp (Debian 3.0.0-3)
> (b...@decadent.org.uk) (gcc version 4.5.3 (Debian 4.5.3-8) ) #1 SMP Sat Aug
> 27 19:51:14 UTC 20
[...]
> [ 52.190433] Fusio
On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 13:07 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> The correct way to invoke kbuild is:
>
> make -C /lib/modules/$(uname -r)/build M=$(PWD)
Without looking at the source, I suspect that the makefile tries to
distinguish between 2.6.x (where the above works) and 2.4.x (where it
doesn't)
The correct way to invoke kbuild is:
make -C /lib/modules/$(uname -r)/build M=$(PWD)
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Never attribute to conspiracy what can adequately be explained by stupidity.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 641151 linux-2.6
Bug #641151 [sl-modem-source] sl-modem-source: Fails to compile on Linux 3.0
kernels
Bug reassigned from package 'sl-modem-source' to 'linux-2.6'.
Bug No longer marked as found in versions sl-
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> clone 592750 -1
Bug#592750: linux-2.6: fan not active after sleep/hibernate
Bug 592750 cloned as bug 640293.
> reassign -1 linux 3.0
Bug #640293 {Done: Jonathan Nieder } [linux-2.6] linux-2.6:
fan not active after sleep/hibernate
Bug reas
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> Your error is "SP5100 TCO timer: mmio address 0xbafe00 already in
> use". (Same error, but different address.) That looks like it's in
> the middle of your RAM, i.e., it looks completely bogus. Given the
> ugliness of the sp5100_tco driver
Hi,
> I don't know what's in the "watchdog" package. I would try the test
> program in the kernel sources:
> Documentation/watchdog/src/watchdog-simple.c.
>
> It looks like if you kill any other process that has /dev/watchdog
> open (use "lsof" to check), then start watchdog-simple, then suspend
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Ralf Jung wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
>
>> Here's a test patch for the TCO timer issue. That SP5100 watchdog
>> driver is a mess -- it gropes around at hard-coded places in I/O port
>> space -- so while I think this patch will fix the message, the
>> watchdog itself still
Hi Bjorn,
> Here's a test patch for the TCO timer issue. That SP5100 watchdog
> driver is a mess -- it gropes around at hard-coded places in I/O port
> space -- so while I think this patch will fix the message, the
> watchdog itself still may not work. If you can verify that the
> watchdog works
Hi,
> Here's a test patch for the TCO timer issue. That SP5100 watchdog
> driver is a mess -- it gropes around at hard-coded places in I/O port
> space -- so while I think this patch will fix the message, the
> watchdog itself still may not work. If you can verify that the
> watchdog works, that
Your error is "SP5100 TCO timer: mmio address 0xbafe00 already in
use". (Same error, but different address.) That looks like it's in
the middle of your RAM, i.e., it looks completely bogus. Given the
ugliness of the sp5100_tco driver, that doesn't surprise me. Possibly
the BIOS configured it di
Here's a test patch for the TCO timer issue. That SP5100 watchdog
driver is a mess -- it gropes around at hard-coded places in I/O port
space -- so while I think this patch will fix the message, the
watchdog itself still may not work. If you can verify that the
watchdog works, that would be great
Hi Bjorn,
> Ralf, can you attach your /proc/iomem contents, too? I looked at the
> "SP5100 TCO timer: mmio address 0xfec000f0 already in use" message,
> but I don't see why that address is in use.
Sure, you can find it attached.
I am getting some more kernel error messages during boot (that I pl
Ralf, can you attach your /proc/iomem contents, too? I looked at the
"SP5100 TCO timer: mmio address 0xfec000f0 already in use" message,
but I don't see why that address is in use.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Cont
Thanks! These tests:
if ((dev->vendor == PCI_VENDOR_ID_AMD) || (dev->device ==
PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_GOLAM_7450))
are clearly wrong. I suspect "&&" was intended instead of "||", but
this code seems to have been that way since the beginning, s
Hi Ralf, can you attach the complete dmesg log to the bug report,
please? I see a snippet (starting with "Bluetooth: SCO socket layer
initialized"), but there's a lot of useful information before that.
The "dmesg" command only shows the most recent part of the log, so if
the kernel's buffer has wr
Hi list,
each time I start up my laptop (Debian testing, Linux 3.0 as provided in the
repositories), the following error (warning?) appears:
[5.083819] shpchp :00:01.0: Cannot reserve MMIO region
The system is working fine as far as I can tell. I observed that message for
quite a
ian/sid).
> Also, I disabled build of the debug linux-image (explodes build-dir up
> to ~6.3GiB).
>
> My base is a Linux-3.0 vanilla tarball.
>
> Most interesting patch should be 0004.
>
> Have fun!
>
> Regards,
> - Sedat -
>
> ### INSTRUCTIONS
>
> # Down
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 15:26 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 12:00 +, maximilian attems wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 12:41:13PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > > Package: linux-2.6
> > > Version: 3.0.0~rc2-1~experimental.1
> > > Severity: normal
> > >
> > >
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 12:00 +, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 12:41:13PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > Package: linux-2.6
> > Version: 3.0.0~rc2-1~experimental.1
> > Severity: normal
> >
> > SUBLEVEL is reserved for -stable in kernel 3.0 and
> > newer. As Debian ker
Your message dated Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:00:53 +
with message-id <20110614120053.ga24...@vostochny.stro.at>
and subject line Re: Bug#630474: linux 3.0 package names should probably not
include SUBLEVEL
has caused the Debian Bug report #630474,
regarding linux 3.0 package names should pr
Package: linux-2.6
Version: 3.0.0~rc2-1~experimental.1
Severity: normal
SUBLEVEL is reserved for -stable in kernel 3.0 and
newer. As Debian kernels did not include the part
of the version number used for stable updates in
the past, I expect that you are not planning to
include them now.
Thus, the
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:03:01AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2011, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On May 30, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > There are likely to be many programs and build scripts that test for a
> > > kernel version prefix of '2.6' vs '2.4' and will behave inc
On Mon, 30 May 2011, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On May 30, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > There are likely to be many programs and build scripts that test for a
> > kernel version prefix of '2.6' vs '2.4' and will behave incorrectly when
> > they find '3.0'. Others require that there are at least 3 numeric
pect that your packages may have such dependencies, please
> test against Linux 3.0 release candidates when they are uploaded to
> experimental (which will happen in the next few days).
Best regards,
Alexander
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
w
On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 23:21 +, Adnan Hodzic wrote:
> > We could delay uploading it to unstable for a while if this is necessary
> > to allow time for fixes to userland.
>
> Would this mean we wouldn't have it in Experimental either?
[...]
Of course not. Just as we uploaded stable releases 2.
> We could delay uploading it to unstable for a while if this is necessary
> to allow time for fixes to userland.
Would this mean we wouldn't have it in Experimental either?
Adnan
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Please reply to debian-kernel as originally requested.
>
Please reply to debian-kernel as originally requested.
On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 00:09 +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> OoO Lors de la soirée naissante du lundi 30 mai 2011, vers 18:52, Ben
> Hutchings disait :
>
> > As you may have seen, the next version of the Linux kernel will be 3.0
> > (or 3.0
On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 23:12 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On May 30, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> > There are likely to be many programs and build scripts that test for a
> > kernel version prefix of '2.6' vs '2.4' and will behave incorrectly when
> > they find '3.0'. Others require that there are at
On May 30, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> There are likely to be many programs and build scripts that test for a
> kernel version prefix of '2.6' vs '2.4' and will behave incorrectly when
> they find '3.0'. Others require that there are at least 3 numeric
Expect module-init-tools and three udev scripts
On Montag, 30. Mai 2011, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> against Linux 3.0 release candidates when they are uploaded to
> experimental (which will happen in the next few days).
awesome.
you posted this 5min _before_ I (jokingly) had the idea to ask when Debian
will have linux 3.0! :-)
/me bows
As you may have seen, the next version of the Linux kernel will be 3.0
(or 3.0.0). There is no significant API change; this just shortens the
version string and marks the start of the third decade of Linux.
The kernel team will not maintain linux-2.6 vs linux-3.0 packages. We
will change the
35 matches
Mail list logo
