On Mon, Jul 07, 2003, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2003-Jul-05 18:55:43 -0400, Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Farid Hajji wrote:
> >[ ... ]
> >>Shouldn't such counters be at least 64 bit wide?
> >
> >You betcha. :-) The problem is that a 32-bit CPU, like the Intel x86
> >family, can't in
Doug White wrote:
>
> The driver could quirk around it, but you'd best contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> for instructions on how to proceed. But please verify your interconnect is
> 100% solid -- 99.99% of SCSI problems are due to interconnect issues, and
> justin doesn't have a lot of time to chase tho
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003, Andrey Sverdlichenko wrote:
> Hello.
>
> After running this program with msdosfs mounted in /mnt, I got a
> file with some garbage in skipped space. Is it a bug in my local
> installation/hardware or real kernel bug?
[...]
> pos = lseek(handle, 1024 * 16 - 100, SEEK_SE
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
That commit broke kernel modules depending on the layout of struct
proc. Since recompiling the kernel module isn't an option for third
party binary modules, the new p_fdtol variable should be moved to the
end of struct proc.
Problem solved,
On 2003-Jul-05 18:55:43 -0400, Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Farid Hajji wrote:
>[ ... ]
>>Shouldn't such counters be at least 64 bit wide?
>
>You betcha. :-) The problem is that a 32-bit CPU, like the Intel x86
>family, can't increment a 64-bit counter atomicly.
This isn't absolutel
Farid Hajji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > "vmstat -s" shows on one of my boxes (uptime: 26 days):
> > >
> > > -1597015721 total name lookups
> > > cache hits (101% pos + 0% neg) system 0% per-directory
> > > deletions 0%, falsehits 0%, toolong 0%
> > >
> > > Weird. I'll hav
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-07-04 at 18:30, Doug White wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Jul 2003, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> >
> > > sa0: Removable Sequential Access SCSI-2 device
> >
> >
> > Why are the firmware versions different?
>
> I noticed tha
On Sat, 5 Jul 2003, Lefteris Tsintjelis wrote:
> Termination and termination power is OK in both buses. I strongly
> believe that it could be the firmware. It is an old and unmaintaned
> board with a build in SCSI bus so no chance for a firmware upgrade,
> checked that one already. I will probably
