* Linus Torvalds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> But yeah, if Debian/sid is just using random compiler snapshots of the
> day, I htink we can just bury this as "pointless".
Err, debian/sid *isn't* defaulting to gcc-4.2 yet, but it is made
available to people who want to install it and play with it.
* Linus Torvalds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I'm hoping your Debian/sid gcc version is some very experimental
> known-buggy one, and not something that people _expect_ to be solid and
> work well?
No such luck. :( Debian's close to moving to gcc-4.2 as the default
compiler in sid. We've rebui
* Adam Megacz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> --- include/linux/magic.h 2006-12-29 15:48:50.0 -0800
> +++ include/linux/magic.h 2006-11-29 13:57:37.0 -0800
> @@ -3,7 +3,6 @@
>
> #define ADFS_SUPER_MAGIC 0xadf5
> #define AFFS_SUPER_MAGIC 0xadff
> -#define AFS
* Jeff Garzik ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> FWIW the Tejun cleanups are a fix, split into three reviewable pieces.
>
> Also, my local iomap branch has advanced sufficiently enough that I
> think it's high time to kill those libata warnings that spew on every
> build. (I hear the crowds roar)
Perh
* Lion Vollnhals ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 14.08.2005, 09:29 -0400 schrieb Willem Riede:
> > On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:54:35 +, Allen Martin wrote:
> > That is disappointing. I was seriously considering a motherboard with your
> > chipset because of its impressive specifications
* Jakob Oestergaard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> This is really the clever way to run a 64-bit system - 99% of what is
> commonly run on most systems only gains overhead from the 64-bit address
> space - tools like postfix, cron, syslog, apache, ... will not gain from
> being native 64-bit.
For mo
* Marc Aurele La France ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> To that end, I would propose, as a possible technical solution, extending
> the kernel build process to detect these errors during kernel development.
Well, couple stupid comments:
#1: I'm not *entirely* sure Linus reads every mail to lkml.. D
* Benjamin Herrenschmidt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Hrm... reading more of the patch & Martin's previous work, I'm not sure
> I like the idea too much in the end... The main problem is that you are
> just "replaying" the ticks afterward, which I see as a problem for
> things like sched_clock() wh
* David S. Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> Russell King writes:
> > At the time I suggested it was because of a missing wakeup in 2.4.2 kernels,
> > but I was shouted down for using 2.2.15pre13. Since then I've seen these
> > reports appear on lkml several times, each time without a sol
Running into a problem with one of our Dell PowerEdge 1400 servers.
We see these messages very rarely, but after they show up the machine
goes into a really odd state:
Mar 26 09:37:27 maul kernel: spurious APIC interrupt on CPU#1, should never happen.
Mar 26 09:37:27 maul kernel: unexpected IRQ v
* fsnchzjr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Watch Microsoft's Jim Allchin go Linux-bashing!!!
> Nice little article on how we're all going to die of herpes from our
> repeated exposition to Linux...
> http://news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html?tag=ltnc
Just reme
* David Ford ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> A person just brought up a problem in #kernelnewbies, building an SMP
> kernel doesn't work very well, current is undefined. I don't have more
> time to debug it but I'll strip the config and put it up at
> http://stuph.org/smp-config
They're try
* David S. Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> Now against 2.4.1-pre2:
>
> ftp.kernel.org:/pub/linux/kernel/people/davem/zerocopy-2.4.1p2-1.diff.gz
Tried it with 2.4.1-pre3, didn't have any problem applying it, but
when I rebooted the system it pretty much had no interest in talking T
* Ingo Molnar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> > Now, the interesting bit here is that the processes can grow to be
> > pretty large (200M+, up as high as 500M, higher if we let it ;) ) and what
> > happens with MOSIX i
* Ingo Molnar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
>
> > but it just doesn't apply when you look at some other applications,
> > such as streaming out video data or performing fileserving in a
> > high-performance compute cluster where you are serving bulk
* Jes Sorensen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > "David" == David S Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> I don't question Alexey's skills and I have no intentions of working
> against him. All I am asking is that someone lets me know if they make
> major changes to my code so I can keep track
* Oliver Xymoron ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > A 100ms delay sounds like some interrupt shut up or similar (and then
> > timer handling makes it limp along).
>
> Possibly related datapoint: after several days of uptime, my
> 2.4.0-test10pre? machin
* Linus Torvalds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >
> > This go around I compiled everything into the kernel, actually.
> > If it would be useful I can compile them as modules reboot and then see
> > what happen
* Linus Torvalds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >
> > Any idea if these issues would cause a general slow-down of a
> > machine? For no apparent reason after 5 days running 2.4.0test12
> > everything going
* Alan Cox ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > machine? For no apparent reason after 5 days running 2.4.0test12
> > everything going through my firewall (set up using iptables) I got about
> > 100ms time added on to pings and traceroutes. I'll probably reboot the
> > machine tonight and see if that h
* Linus Torvalds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> Especially if we get that netfilter problem sorted out (see the other
> thread about the IP fragmentation issues associated with that one), and
> if we figure out why apparently some people have trouble with external
> modules (at least one person h
* Jeroen Geusebroek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> I'm having troubles with the eepro driver included in kernel 2.2.17.
> It stops sometimes with no apparent reason. The one thing i noticed
> is that it seems to have a lot of carrier problems(998!)
>
> This is part of the result from ifconfig:
>
* Andries Brouwer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> So, in the long run we want a large pid_t. What about the short run?
> For today the disadvantages are negligeable, and for people who
> like security there are definite advantages.
Much more the problem is giving people the *impression* of
a
* Igmar Palsenberg ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> Tell my teacher it's a good idea, he is telling otherwise :)
Academics and reality don't tend to equate. :) Something to do with the
world not exactly being perfect. The reality is, if you hadn't guessed, Linux
is doing rather well. :)
* Admin Mailing Lists ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 02:57:54PM -0300, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm having endless problem with an eepro100 here. After some trying found out
> > > that doing a soft reset (ctrl
25 matches
Mail list logo
