Mark Hahn wrote:
> > > contrary to the implication here, I don't believe there is any *general*
> > > problem with Linux/VIA/AMD stability. there are well-known issues
> ...
> > VIA hardware is not suitable for anything until we _know_ the
> > truth about what is wrong. VIA is hiding somethin
Andreas Dilger wrote in part:
>
> Albert Cahalan write:
> > The nice way to develop this code is with a block device that
> > discards all writes after a timer goes off.
This is nice, but a bit destructive for my likes. Hard and long to
do multiple tests. Also, it misses one severe case: an i
Daniel Phillips wrote in part:
>
> To be fair, when Soft Updates is working perfectly you will move from a
> situation where you are constantly at risk of catstrophic filesystem
> damage to one where you will just be losing track of some free blocks,
> have some file lengths wrong, and some partl
I'm wondering if there are any plans to bring Kirk McKusick's "Soft-Updates"
to Linux in 2.5 ??? Kirk has recently modified his licence (friendlier).
I could only find some noncomittal postings on LKML from 1997.
S-U brings considerable benefits akin to JFS for crash protection to *BSD
systems.
Sushil wrote:
>
> I agree. Sitting in the front of desktop I can see if the source files are
> getting compiled with or without -fomit-frame-pointer. But, while writing
> a function in a kernel source file, I want to know whether the caller of
> this function was compiled with or without -fomit-f
> I am trying to get the call trace of a process by tracing the return
> addresses on the stack. To get the correct location of the return
> address I need to know whether the kernel is being compiled with
> frame pointer because this will affect the offset of return address
> on the stack.
I've been testing out the 2.4.0 kernels as Linus wants.
My particular area is looking at SMP interrupt handling
trying to write `burnAPIC`.
First, the good news: average int overhead measured by
`clockwatcher.c` [posted last year] is down from ~960 CPU
clocks in 2.2.13 to ~740 clocks in 2.4.
I'm in the process of migrating my foreign modules to 2.4,
and it now appears that proc_register() and proc_unregister()
are no longer exported from the kernel. Bug or feature?
I know that Linus reserves the right to change interfaces,
but I couldn't find any mention in the archives of deleting
In keeping with my other projects, I'm working on `burnAPIC`
to test out APIC functionality. I've finally got the APIC
interrupt command register working -- in a kernel module,
of course. I'm a little behind on kernels -- 2.2.13.
I stick in `movl $0x000840D0, 0xE300` and I get a nice
sp
9 matches
Mail list logo
