PCI bridge setup error in linux-2.4.x (anyone of them)

2001-06-29 Thread Martin Dalecki
I ahve a PC box at hand, which ist containing 8 PCI slots. Four of them are sitting behind a PCI bridge. The error in the new kernel series is that during the PCI bus setup if a card is sitting behind the bridge, it will be miracelously detected TWICE. Once in front of the bridge and once behind t

Re: Bug in 3c905 driver.

2001-06-25 Thread Martin Dalecki
William Park wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 08:51:28PM +0200, Martin Dalecki wrote: > > Just a note... > > > > This card get's detected twofold by the plain 2.4.5 kernel. > > It get's listed twice under both lspci and during the kernel boot > >

Bug in 3c905 driver.

2001-06-25 Thread Martin Dalecki
Just a note... This card get's detected twofold by the plain 2.4.5 kernel. It get's listed twice under both lspci and during the kernel boot sequence on a HP LHr3 system. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More m

Re: [OT] Threads, inelegance, and Java

2001-06-20 Thread Martin Dalecki
Mike Harrold wrote: > So what? Crusoe isn't designed for use in supercomputers. It's designed > for use in laptops where the user is running an email reader, a web > browser, a word processor, and where the user couldn't give a cr*p about > performance as long as it isn't noticeable (20% *isn't* f

Re: [OT] Threads, inelegance, and Java

2001-06-20 Thread Martin Dalecki
Rob Landley wrote: > The same arguments were made 30 years ago about writing the OS in a high > level language like C rather than in raw assembly. And back in the days of > the sub-1-mhz CPU, that really meant something. And then those days we are still writing lot's of ASM in kernels... > I d

Re: How to know HZ from userspace?

2001-05-30 Thread Martin Dalecki
Joel Becker wrote: > > On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 05:24:37PM -0700, Jonathan Lundell wrote: > > FWIW (perhaps not much in this context), the POSIX way is sysconf(_SC_CLK_TCK) > > > > POSIX sysconf is pretty useful for this kind of thing (not just HZ, either). > > Well, how many hundred thin

Re: [PATCH] fix more typos in Configure.help and fs/nls/Config.in

2001-05-30 Thread Martin Dalecki
> Standard is right. > Believe me as someone who are living in Belarus ;-) OK. I trust you. > > Official country name: Belarus > Language/Nationality: Belarusian > > Standard has taken things right as we pronounce them. > > Please apply the patc

Re: [PATCH] struct char_device

2001-05-23 Thread Martin Dalecki
Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Tue, 22 May 2001, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > > IMHO it would be nice to (for 2.4) create wrappers for accessing the > > block arrays, so that we can more easily dispose of the arrays when 2.5 > > rolls around... > > No. > > We do not create wrappers "so that we can ea

Re: [PATCH] struct char_device

2001-05-22 Thread Martin Dalecki
w/drivers/char/raw.c Mon Apr 30 22:57:20 2001 @@ -124,22 +124,25 @@ return err; } - - /* -* Don't interfere with mounted devices: we cannot safely set - * the blocksize on a device which is already mounted. + /* +* 29.04.2001 Martin Dalecki: +

Re: [PATCH] struct char_device

2001-05-22 Thread Martin Dalecki
And if we are at the topic... Those are the places where blk_size[] get's abused, since it's in fact a property of a FS in fact and not the property of a particular device... blksect_size is the array describing the physical access limits of a device and blk_size get's usually checked against it.

Re: [PATCH] struct char_device

2001-05-22 Thread Martin Dalecki
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Martin Dalecki writes: > > > Erm... I wasn't talking about the DESIRED state of affairs! > > I was talking about the CURRENT state of affairs. OK? > > Oh, but in 1995 it was quite possible to compile the kernel > with kdev_t

Re: [PATCH] struct char_device

2001-05-22 Thread Martin Dalecki
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Martin Dalecki writes: > > > I fully agree with you. > > Good. > > Unfortunately I do not fully agree with you. > > > Most of the places where there kernel is passing kdev_t > > would be entierly satisfied with only the k

Re: [PATCH] struct char_device

2001-05-22 Thread Martin Dalecki
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > They are entirely different. Too different sets of operations. > > Maybe you didnt understand what I meant. > both bdev and cdev take care of the correspondence > device number <---> struct with operations. > > The operations are different, but all bdev/cdev code

Re: [PATCH] SCSI disk minor number cleaning

2001-05-15 Thread Martin Dalecki
Andrzej Krzysztofowicz wrote: > > Hi, > The following patch cleans up a bit usage of parameters related to > number of minors per disk in the SCSI subsystem. This is a preliminary > patch and it seems to not contain any problematic changes. The full version > of the patch (that allows to succes

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

2001-05-15 Thread Martin Dalecki
Linus Torvalds wrote: > and then use > > fd = open("/dev/fd0/colourspace", O_RDWR); > This, btw, is Al Viro's wet dream. But I have to agree: using name spaces > etc is MUCH preferable to ioctl's, makes code more readable and logical, > and often makes it possible to do things you could

Re: LANANA: Getting out of hand?

2001-05-15 Thread Martin Dalecki
Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, 14 May 2001, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > Except that Linus wont hand out major numbers, which means I can't even boot > > simply off such a device. I bet the vendors in question dont think the sun > > shines out of linus backside any more. > > Actually, it does. It'

Re: [PATCH] fbdev logo (fwd)

2001-05-10 Thread Martin Dalecki
> - Political fixes: > o There were still some penguins left carrying a glass of beer or wine. > This problem is about 2 years old! Could You please for the sake of political correctness just replace the beer with a glass of vodka please... It tastes better anyway! - To unsubscrib

Re: blkdev in pagecache

2001-05-09 Thread Martin Dalecki
Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 11:13:33AM +0200, Martin Dalecki wrote: > > > (buffered and direct) to work with a 4096 bytes granularity instead of > > > > You mean PAGE_SIZE :-). > > In my first patch it is really 4096 bytes, but yes I

Re: blkdev in pagecache

2001-05-09 Thread Martin Dalecki
Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > (btw, also the current rawio uses a 512byte bh->b_size granularity that is even > worse than the 1024byte b_size of the blkdev, O_DIRECT is much smarter > on this side as it uses the softblocksize of the fs that can be as well > 4k if you created the fs with -b 4096) Am

Re: page_launder() bug

2001-05-09 Thread Martin Dalecki
Rusty Russell wrote: > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write: > > > > Jonathan Morton writes: > > > >- page_count(page) == (1 + !!page->buffers)); > > > > > > Two inversions in a row? > > > > It is the most straightforward way to make a '1' or '0' > > integer from the NUL

Re: iso9660 endianness cleanup patch

2001-05-02 Thread Martin Dalecki
"H. Peter Anvin" wrote: > > Hi guys, > > I was looking over the iso9660 code, and noticed that it was doing > endianness conversion via ad hoc *functions*, not even inlines; nor did > it take any advantage of the fact that iso9660 is bi-endian (has "all" > data in both bigendian and littleendian

PATCH 2.4.4 some fixes for the usage of blksize_size and others

2001-04-30 Thread Martin Dalecki
/* -* Don't interfere with mounted devices: we cannot safely set - * the blocksize on a device which is already mounted. + /* +* 29.04.2001 Martin Dalecki: +* +* The original comment here was saying: +* +* "Don&#x

Re: [PATCH] cleanup for fixing get_super() races

2001-04-29 Thread Martin Dalecki
Alexander Viro wrote: > > On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Martin Dalecki wrote: > > > I think in the context you are inventig the proposed function, > > the drivers has allways an inode at hand. And contrary to what Linus > > Read the patch. Almost all cases are of the &

Re: [PATCH] cleanup for fixing get_super() races

2001-04-28 Thread Martin Dalecki
Alexander Viro wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote: > > > Fine with me. Actually in _all_ cases execept cdrom.c it's preceded by > > either sync_dev() or fsync_dev(). What do you think about pulling that > > into the same function? Actually, that's what I've done in namespace >

Re: [PATCH] SMP race in ext2 - metadata corruption.

2001-04-27 Thread Martin Dalecki
Linus Torvalds wrote: > Dump was a stupid program in the first place. Leave it behind. Not quite Linus - dump/restore are nice tools to create for example automatic over network installation servers, i.e. efficient system images or such. tar/cpio and friends don't deal properly with a. holes in

Re: PATCH for 2.4.3 - tinny mount code cleanup (kernel 0.97 compatibility)

2001-04-27 Thread Martin Dalecki
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > From: Martin Dalecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > The attached patch is fixing georgeous "backward compatibility" > in the mount system command. It is removing two useless defines in > the kernel headers and fina

Re: PATCH: 2.4.3 tinny module interface cleanum

2001-04-26 Thread Martin Dalecki
Ingo Oeser wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 10:58:46AM +0200, Martin Dalecki wrote: > > 1. Help making the module interface cleaner by a tinny margin :-). > > You only help changing the API during a stable[1] series. Wait until 2.5 > for this. > > API cannot change

PATCH: 2.4.3 tinny module interface cleanum

2001-04-26 Thread Martin Dalecki
Hello! The following patch is making the get_empty_super() function just local to the place where it's only use is and where it's only use should be: fs/super.c The removal of this symbol from ksyms.c should: 1. Help making the module interface cleaner by a tinny margin :-). 2. shouldn't hurt

PATCH for 2.4.3 - tinny mount code cleanup (kernel 0.97 compatibility)

2001-04-26 Thread Martin Dalecki
The attached patch is fixing georgeous "backward compatibility" in the mount system command. It is removing two useless defines in the kernel headers and finally doubles the number of possible flags for the mount command. Please apply. If there are any line count difference warnings when applyin

Re: Device Registry (DevReg) Patch 0.2.0

2001-04-24 Thread Martin Dalecki
Tim Jansen wrote: > > On Tuesday 24 April 2001 11:40, Martin Dalecki wrote: > > Tim Jansen wrote: > > > The Linux Device Registry (devreg) is a kernel patch that adds a device > > > database in XML format to the /proc filesystem. It collects all > > OH SHIT!!

Re: Device Registry (DevReg) Patch 0.2.0

2001-04-24 Thread Martin Dalecki
Tim Jansen wrote: > > The Linux Device Registry (devreg) is a kernel patch that adds a device > database in XML format to the /proc filesystem. It collects all information OH SHIT!! ^^^ Why don't you just add postscript output to /proc? > about the system's physical devices, creates pers

Re: Device Major max and Disk Max in 2.4.x kernel

2001-04-23 Thread Martin Dalecki
"Dupuis, Don" wrote: > > I have already sent a patch to Alan and Linus on this issue. Linus has > never responed and Alan said he would look into it in the middle of April. > Nothing is new at this point > > -Original Message- > From: PhiloVivero [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunda

Re: [BUG] lvm beta7 and ac11 problems

2001-04-23 Thread Martin Dalecki
Jeff Chua wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Martin Dalecki wrote: > > > > > depmod: *** Unresolved symbols in >/lib/modules/2.4.3-ac11/kernel/drivers/md/lvm-mod.o > > try this (after you have applied the patch for lvm 0.9.1_beta7) ... > > Jeff > [[E

Re: [BUG] lvm beta7 and ac11 problems

2001-04-23 Thread Martin Dalecki
Jens Axboe wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 21 2001, Ed Tomlinson wrote: > > Hi, > > > > building a kernel with 2.4.3-ac11 and lvm beta7 + vfs_locking_patch-2.4.2 yields: > > > > oscar# depmod -ae 2.4.3-ac11 > > depmod: *** Unresolved symbols in >/lib/modules/2.4.3-ac11/kernel/drivers/md/lvm-mod.o > > dep

PATCH tinny confusion cleanup in 2.4.3

2001-04-18 Thread Martin Dalecki
Hello! The attached patch remove the get_hardblock_size() function entierly from the kernel. This is due to the fact that this function is compleatly unneccessary due to the existance of get_hardsect_size(), which got introduced to properly encapsulate acesses to the hardsec_size[]. As a side eff

Re: Larger dev_t

2001-04-03 Thread Martin Dalecki
> One thing I certainly miss: DevFS is not mandatory (yet). That's "only" due to the fact that DevFS is an insanely racy and instable piece of CRAP. I'm unhappy it's there anyway... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTEC

Re: Larger dev_t

2001-04-03 Thread Martin Dalecki
Alan Cox wrote: > > > If anything I'm a *SERIOUS* production user. And I wouldn't allow > > *ANYBODY* here to run am explicitly tagged as developement kernel > > here anyway in an production enviornment. That's what releases are for > > damn. > > Or do you think that Linux should still preserve D

Re: Larger dev_t

2001-04-03 Thread Martin Dalecki
Alan Cox wrote: > > > So change them as well for a new distribution. What's there problem. > > There isn't anything out there you can't do by hand. > > Fortunately so! > > So users cannot go back and forward between new and old kernels. Very good. > Try explaining that to serious production -use

Re: Larger dev_t

2001-04-03 Thread Martin Dalecki
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > OK - everybody back from San Jose - pity I couldnt come - > and it is no longer April 1st, so we can continue quarreling > a little. > > Interesting that where I had divided stuff in the trivial part, > the interesting part and the lot-of-work part we already start >

Re: Larger dev_t

2001-03-29 Thread Martin Dalecki
Alan Cox wrote: > > > Why do you worry about installers? New distro - new kernel - new > > installer > > Because the same code tends to be shared with post install configuration > tools too. So change them as well for a new distribution. What's there problem. There isn't anything out there you

Re: Larger dev_t

2001-03-28 Thread Martin Dalecki
Alan Cox wrote: > > > Exactly. It's just that for historical reasons, I think the major for > > "disk" should be either the old IDE or SCSI one, which just can show more > > devices. That way old installers etc work without having to suddenly start > > knowing about /dev/disk0. > > They will mos

Re: Larger dev_t

2001-03-28 Thread Martin Dalecki
> what do other vaguely unix-like systems do? does, say, plan9 have a > better way of dealing with all this? Yes. Normal UNIX has as well. For reffernece see: block ver raw devices on docs.sun.com :-). - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a m

Re: Larger dev_t

2001-03-28 Thread Martin Dalecki
Alan Cox wrote: > > > high-end-disks. Rather the reverse. I'm advocating the SCSI layer not > > hogging a major number, but letting low-level drivers get at _their_ > > requests directly. > > A major for 'disk' generically makes total sense. Classing raid controllers > as 'scsi' isnt neccessaril

Re: Larger dev_t

2001-03-28 Thread Martin Dalecki
Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote: > > > > Am I hearing you state you want dynamic device points and dynamic majors? > > Yes and no. > > We need static structures for user space - from a user perspective it > makes a ton more sense to say "I want to see all disk

Re: Larger dev_t

2001-03-28 Thread Martin Dalecki
"H. Peter Anvin" wrote: > > Alan Cox wrote: > > > > > Another example: all the stupid pseudo-SCSI drivers that got their own > > > major numbers, and wanted their very own names in /dev. They are BAD for > > > the user. Install-scripts etc used to be able to just test /dev/hd[a-d] > > > and /dev/

Re: Larger dev_t

2001-03-28 Thread Martin Dalecki
"H. Peter Anvin" wrote: > > This is my opinion on the issue. Short summary: "I'm sick of the > administrative burden associated with keeping dev_t dense." > > Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > And let's take a look at /dev. Do a "ls -l /dev" and think about it. Every > > device needs a unique numbe

Re: OOM killer???

2001-03-27 Thread Martin Dalecki
Ingo Oeser wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 03:24:16PM +0200, Martin Dalecki wrote: > > > @@ -93,6 +95,10 @@ > > > p->uid == 0 || p->euid == 0) > > > points /= 4; > > > > > >

Re: [PATCH] OOM handling

2001-03-27 Thread Martin Dalecki
Michel Wilson wrote: > > > relative ages. The major flaw in my code is that a sufficiently > > long-lived > > process becomes virtually immortal, even if it happens to spring a serious > > leak after this time - the flaw in yours is that system processes > > I think this could easily be fixed i

Re: [PATCH] OOM handling

2001-03-27 Thread Martin Dalecki
Jonathan Morton wrote: > > Oh and BTW, I think Bit/sqr(seconds) is a perfectly acceptable unit for > "badness". Think about it - it increases with pigginess and decreases with > longevity. I really don't see a problem with it per se. Right it's not a problem pre se, but as you already explain

Re: OOM killer???

2001-03-27 Thread Martin Dalecki
Jonathan Morton wrote: > > >Out of Memory: Killed process 117 (sendmail). > > > >What we did to run it out of memory, I don't know. But I do know that > >it shouldn't be killing one process more than once... (the process > >should not exist after one try...) > > This is a known bug in the Out-of

Re: 64-bit block sizes on 32-bit systems

2001-03-26 Thread Martin Dalecki
"Eric W. Biederman" wrote: > > Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 10:47:13AM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > > What do you mean by problems 5 years down the road? The real issue is that > > > this 32-bit block count limit affects composite devices like MD

Re: [PATCH] OOM handling

2001-03-25 Thread Martin Dalecki
Jonathan Morton wrote: > > >- the AGE_FACTOR calculation will overflow after the system has > > an uptime of just _3_ days > > Tsk tsk tsk... > > >Now if you can make something which preserves the heuristics which > >serve us so well on desktop boxes and add something that makes it > >also wor

Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init

2001-03-25 Thread Martin Dalecki
Alan Cox wrote: > > > That depends what you mean by "must not". If it's your missile guidance > > system, aircraft autopilot or life support system, the system must not run > > out of memory in the first place. If the system breaks down badly, killing > > init and thus panicking (hence rebooting,

Re: [PATCH] OOM handling

2001-03-25 Thread Martin Dalecki
Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Martin Dalecki wrote: > > > Ah... and of course I think this patch can already go directly > > into the official kernel. The quality of code should permit > > it. I would esp. request Rik van Riel to have a closer l

Re: Larger dev_t

2001-03-25 Thread Martin Dalecki
Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > We need a size, and I am strongly in favor of sizeof(dev_t) = 8; > > this is already true in glibc. > > The fact that glibc is a quivering mass of bloat, and total and utter crap > makes you suggest that the Linux ker

Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init

2001-03-25 Thread Martin Dalecki
Stephen Satchell wrote: > > At 12:41 AM 3/25/01 +0100, you wrote: > >If your box is running for example a mail server, and it appears that > >another process is juste eating the free memory, do you really want to kill > >the mail server, just because it's the main process and consuming more > >me

Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init

2001-03-25 Thread Martin Dalecki
Jonathan Morton wrote: > > >Right now my best approximation is to make the OOM test be as optimistic as > >it is safe to be, and the vm_enough_memory() test as pessimistic as > >sensible. Expect a test patch to appear on this list soon. > > ...and here it is! > > This fixes a number of small b

Re: Larger dev_t

2001-03-25 Thread Martin Dalecki
Jeff Garzik wrote: > > Also for 2.5, kdev_t needs to go away, along with all those arrays based > on major number, and be replaced with either "struct char_device" or > "struct block_device" depending on the device. > > I actually went through the kernel in 2.4.0-test days and did this. > Most k

Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init

2001-03-25 Thread Martin Dalecki
Benoit Garnier wrote: > > Szabolcs Szakacsits wrote : > > > But if you start > > to think you get the conclusion that process killing can't be avoided if > > you want the system keep running. > > What's the point in keeping the OS running if the applications are silently > killed? > > If your

Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init

2001-03-25 Thread Martin Dalecki
Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Doug Ledford wrote: > > [snip list of naughty behavior] > > > What was that you were saying about "should *never* happen"? Oh, and let's > Get off your lazy butts and do something about it. Don't work on the > oom-killer though.. that's only a sy

Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init

2001-03-25 Thread Martin Dalecki
Doug Ledford wrote: > > Horst von Brand wrote: > > > > "Christian Bodmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > > > I can't say I understand the whole MM system, however the random killing > > > of processes seems like a rather unfortunate solution to the problem. If > > > someone has a spare minute, m

[PATCH] OOM handling

2001-03-25 Thread Martin Dalecki
Martin Dalecki wrote: > > I have a constructive proposal: > > It would make much sense to make the oom killer > leave not just root processes alone but processes belonging to a UID > lower > then a certain value as well (500). This would be: > > 1. Easly managable by

Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init

2001-03-23 Thread Martin Dalecki
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > [to various people] > > No, ulimit does not work. (But it helps a little.) > No, /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory does not work. > > [to Alan] > > > Nobody feels its very important because nobody has implemented it. > > Yes, that is the right response. > What can on

Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init

2001-03-23 Thread Martin Dalecki
SodaPop wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Martin Dalecki wrote: > > > SodaPop wrote: > > > > > > Rik, is there any way we could get a /proc entry for this, so that one > > > could do something like: > > > > I will respond; NO there is n

Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init

2001-03-23 Thread Martin Dalecki
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Please point me to an Operating System that runs on any commonly available > platform and fits your requirements. > Nick You don't beleve me if I tell you: DOS extender and JVM (Java Virtual Machine) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe

Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init

2001-03-23 Thread Martin Dalecki
I have a constructive proposal: It would make much sense to make the oom killer leave not just root processes alone but processes belonging to a UID lower then a certain value as well (500). This would be: 1. Easly managable by the admin. Just let oracle/www and analogous users have a UID low

Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init

2001-03-23 Thread Martin Dalecki
SodaPop wrote: > > Rik, is there any way we could get a /proc entry for this, so that one > could do something like: I will respond; NO there is no way for security reasons this is not a good idea. > cat /proc/oom-kill-scores | sort +3 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscrib

Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init

2001-03-23 Thread Martin Dalecki
Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Sat, 23 Mar 2002, Martin Dalecki wrote: > > > This is due to the broken calculation formula in oom_kill(). > > Feel free to write better-working code. I don't get paid for it and I'm not idling through my days... - To unsubscrib

Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init

2001-03-22 Thread Martin Dalecki
Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Sat, 23 Mar 2002, Martin Dalecki wrote: > > > Uptime of a process is a much better mesaure for a killing > > candidate then it's size. > > You'll have fun with your root shell, then ;) You mean the remote one? > The current

Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init

2001-03-22 Thread Martin Dalecki
Stephen Clouse wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 01:33:50AM +0100, Martin Dalecki wrote: > > AMEN! TO THIS! > > Uptime of a process is a much better mesaure for a killing candidate > > then it's size. &

Re: 5Mb missing...

2001-03-14 Thread Martin Dalecki
Jonathan Morton wrote: > > >> If crashes are routine on this machine, I'd recommend that you take > >> a serious look at your ram. (or if you're overclocking, don't) > > > >Crashes were routine, and I was not overclocking, so I took Mike's > >advice and bought a new 256MB DIMM. The computer hasn'

Re: system call for process information?

2001-03-13 Thread Martin Dalecki
Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Albert D. Cahalan wrote: > > > Bloat removal: being able to run without /proc mounted. > > > > We don't have "kernel speed". We have kernel-mode screwing around > > with text formatting. > > Sounds like you might want to maintain an external patch >

Re: linux localization

2001-03-11 Thread Martin Dalecki
Alan Cox wrote: > > > My work will concern with the internationalization of Linux > > So, could anybody tell me what kinds of features should be in the > > consideration when linux be localized from english to Japanese or chinese, > > say using 2 bytes character set. > > Most of the Linux usersp

Re: [PATCH] Penguin logos

2001-03-11 Thread Martin Dalecki
"Albert D. Cahalan" wrote: > > Geert Uytterhoeven writes: > > > - The colors for the 16 color logo are wrong. We used a hack to > > give the logo its own color palette, but this no longer works > > as a side effect of a console color map bug being fixed a while > > ago. The solutio

Re: [PATCH] new setprocuid syscall

2001-02-20 Thread Martin Dalecki
Peter Samuelson wrote: > > [BERECZ Szabolcs] > > Here is a new syscall. With this you can change the owner of a running > > procces. > > > + if (current->euid) > > + return -EPERM; > > Use capable(). > > > + p = find_task_by_pid(pid); > > + p->fsuid = p->euid =

Re: [Kiobuf-io-devel] RFC: Kernel mechanism: Compound event wait

2001-02-09 Thread Martin Dalecki
Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > > > > > > You need aio_open. > > > > Could you explain this? > > > > > > If the server is sending many small files, disk spends huge > > > amount time walking directory tree and

Re: [Kiobuf-io-devel] RFC: Kernel mechanism: Compound event wait

2001-02-08 Thread Martin Dalecki
Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Ben LaHaise wrote: > > > > On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > > > > > The whole point of the post was that it is merging, not splitting, > > > which is troublesome. How are you going to merge requests without > > > having chains of scatt

Re: [PATCH] ident of whole-disk ext2 fs

2000-12-19 Thread Martin Dalecki
Dnia Wto 19. Grudzie? 2000 18:45, Andries Brouwer napisa?: > On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 06:14:04AM -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote: > > I always disliked the unknown partition table messages you get when you > > mke2fs a whole disk and don't bother with a table at all, so I fixed it. > > Output before/af

Re: Adaptec AIC7XXX v 6.0.6 BETA Released

2000-12-14 Thread Martin Dalecki
"Justin T. Gibbs" wrote: > > > > >What's wrong with current? It's perfectly fine, since it's the main data > >context entity you are working with during it's usage... Just remember > >it as > >CURRENT MAIN PROBLEM the kernel is struggling with at time. > > What's wrong with the aic7xxx driver st

Re: Adaptec AIC7XXX v 6.0.6 BETA Released

2000-12-14 Thread Martin Dalecki
"Justin T. Gibbs" wrote: > > >> BSD has curproc, but that is considerably less likely to be > >> used in "inoccent code" than "current". I mean, "current what?". > >> It could be anything, current privledges, current process, current > >> thread, the current time... > > > >I see and I assume cal

Re: ANNOUNCE: Linux Kernel ORB: kORBit

2000-12-11 Thread Martin Dalecki
Dietmar Kling wrote: > > Ok guys i take your arguments... > (i really loved to hear them) > > and i'd like to continue them in a > private discussion( but i am > tired now ... :) ) > > but a last one i cannot resist... > > > but why are your ideas not widespread and > so successful like kde,g

[PATCH] PCI id list update

2000-11-22 Thread Martin Dalecki
Just a small trivial obviously correct update... diff -ur linux/include/linux/pci_ids.h linux-mega/include/linux/pci_ids.h --- linux/include/linux/pci_ids.h Tue Nov 21 16:31:52 2000 +++ linux-mega/include/linux/pci_ids.h Tue Nov 21 18:54:58 2000 @@ -257,6 +257,11 @@ #define PCI_VENDOR_ID_

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Generalised Kernel Hooks Interface (GKHI)

2000-11-10 Thread Martin Dalecki
Alexander Viro wrote: > > On 9 Nov 2000, Mike Coleman wrote: > > > Alexander Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > RMS had repeatedly demonstrated what he's worth as a designer > > > and programmer. Way below zero. You may like or dislike his ideology, > > > but when it comes to technical stuf

Re: Persistent module storage [was Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page]

2000-11-07 Thread Martin Dalecki
Martin Mares wrote: > > Hi Alan! > > > If the sound card is only used some of the time or setup and then used > > for TV its nice to get the 60K + 128K DMA buffer back when you dont need it > > especially on a low end box > > So why don't we allocate / free the DMA buffer on device open / close

Re: Persistent module storage [was Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page]

2000-11-06 Thread Martin Dalecki
Alan Cox wrote: > > > >Just load the driver at bootup and forget about it. Problem solved. > > > > I daily curse the name of whoever added autoload and autounload. > > Autoload maybe useful, autounload is just asking for problems. > > Deal with it. Hardware is also now auto load and auto unload

Re: Persistent module storage [was Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page]

2000-11-06 Thread Martin Dalecki
David Woodhouse wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > * Driver initializes mixer to 100% muted * Userspace app sets desired > > values to /dev/mixer * Userspace app opens /dev/dsp to play sound > > > I don't see where any sound can "escape" in this scenario, and it > > doesn't require any modu

Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?)

2000-11-03 Thread Martin Dalecki
Tim Riker wrote: > > ok, a very valid point. The "C++ kernel code" reference is very telling. > (ouch). ;-) > > Obviously the changes to support non-gcc compilers should have the goal > of minimal impact on gcc users lives. I recognize that the mainstream > will still use gcc. > > Q: Why should

Re: ESS device "1998"

2000-11-02 Thread Martin Dalecki
Mo McKinlay wrote: > > I recently obtained an HP Omnibook XE2 laptop. It's a reasonably > nicely-specced machine, although (unsuprsingly) the hardware isn't too > well supported with Linux. > > I've given up on the internal modem (I'm 90% sure it's some kind of > software modem, and I have an ex

Re: 2.4.0-test10-pre6: Use of abs()

2000-11-02 Thread Martin Dalecki
Richard Henderson wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 09:46:19AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > What versions of gcc produce the built-in functions? > > 2.95 and previous. In 2.96 somewhere we fixed a bug that > automatically prototypes these builtin functions for you; > ie with current cod

Re: Recommended compiler? - Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)

2000-10-31 Thread Martin Dalecki
Horst von Brand wrote: > > Martin Dalecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > Peter Samuelson wrote: > > [...] > > > > * Red Hat "2.96" or CVS 2.97 will probably break any known kernel. > > > Works fine for me and 2.4.0-test10-pre5... howe

Re: PATCH: killing read_ahead[]

2000-10-30 Thread Martin Dalecki
Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > > OTOH, block-dev readahead makes sense for filesystems where > > the packing locality is close to the access pattern BUT NOT > > close to anything the page cache would recognise as being > > close. > > I dunno. The main re

Re: 2.4.0-test10-pre6: Use of abs()

2000-10-30 Thread Martin Dalecki
Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 03:01:16PM +0100, Martin Dalecki wrote: > > Horst von Brand wrote: > > > > > > Red Hat 7.0, i686, gcc-20001027 (Yes, I know. Just to flush out bugs on > > > both sides). > > > > > > abs()

Re: 2.4.0-test10-pre6: Use of abs()

2000-10-30 Thread Martin Dalecki
Horst von Brand wrote: > > Red Hat 7.0, i686, gcc-20001027 (Yes, I know. Just to flush out bugs on > both sides). > > abs() is used at least in: > > arch/i386/kernel/time.c > drivers/md/raid1.c > drivers/sound/sb_ess.c > > gcc warns about use of a non-declared function each time. > > No defin

Re: Recommended compiler? - Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)

2000-10-30 Thread Martin Dalecki
Peter Samuelson wrote: > > > So which is the recommended compiler for each kernel version 2.2.x, > > 2.4.x(pre?) nowadays? > > * 2.91.66 aka egcs 1.1.2. It has been officially blessed for 2.4 and > has been given an informal thumbs-up by Alan for 2.2. (It does NOT > work for 2.0, if you st

Re: PATCH: killing read_ahead[]

2000-10-24 Thread Martin Dalecki
Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > Please have a look at the following patch and feel free to be scared > > by the fact how UTTERLY BROKEN and ARBITRARY the current usage of the > > read_ahead[] array and during the whole past decade was! > > If you really care about clean internal interfaces this should b

Re: PATCH: killing read_ahead[]

2000-10-24 Thread Martin Dalecki
Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Martin Dalecki wrote: > > > The most amanzing thing is that the whole test10-pre5 kernel > > with this patch applied doesn't show any performance penalties > > for me at all! And of corse it's about 10k smaller

PATCH: killing read_ahead[]

2000-10-24 Thread Martin Dalecki
Hello! Please have a look at the following patch and feel free to be scared by the fact how UTTERLY BROKEN and ARBITRARY the current usage of the read_ahead[] array and during the whole past decade was! If you really care about clean internal interfaces this should be one of those prio number ONE

Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?

2000-10-01 Thread Martin Dalecki
Igmar Palsenberg wrote: > > > I wouldn't mind, either, if this didn't mean that programs compiled > > on rehdat need redhat versions of the development toolchain / runtime > > environment to use them :( Ever tried to recompile SuSE apache from the src.rpm they provide? I wish you good louck gett

Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?

2000-10-01 Thread Martin Dalecki
Richard Henderson wrote: > Frankly, I didn't even consider C++ ABI compatibility with other > Linux vendors, since I think that's a losing proposition until > everyone is using gcc3. We were _already_ incompatible, since > there are a mix of egcs and gcc versions involved. C++ ABI breaking: SuSE

Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?

2000-10-01 Thread Martin Dalecki
Marc Lehmann wrote: > If you disagree personally or technically with me you either say this > in public or private or keep quiet. Attacking me over totally unrelated > things is obviously some maneuver to distract people from the real, > kernel-related question, and I have no idea why you are doin

  1   2   >