On 12/1/06, Mike Mattie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In an attempt to debug another kernel issue I turned on the lock validator and
managed to generate this report.
As a side note the first attempt to boot with the lock validator failed with
a message indicating I had exceeded MAX_LOCK_DEPTH. To
On 12/1/06, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 22:00 -0800, Hua Zhong wrote:
> I am curious, what's the point?
>
> These email addresses serve a "historical" purpose: they tell when the
contribution was made, what the author's email addresses
> were at that point.
On 8/14/05, Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know the alternatives are available. That doesn't make it any less
> idiotic to use non ASCII characters as operators. I think it's a very
> slippery slope. We write code in ASCII, dammit.
Yes you and I might write 99.9% of our code in good'
On 8/13/05, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patch adds support for UTF-8 signatures (aka BOM, byte order
> mark) to binfmt_script.
> With such support, creating scripts that reliably carry non-ASCII
> characters is simplified.
> the approach would naturally extend to Perl to
On 8/5/05, Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm. If we had kcmalloc then we may be able to add a zero bit to the slab
> allocator. If we would obtain zeroed pages for the slab then we may skip
> zeroing of individual entries. However, the cache warming effect of the
> current zeroing
On 8/5/05, Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > This would imply a similiar kmalloc() would be useful as well.
> > > Second, how relevant is it for the kernel?
> > we've had a non-negliable amount of security holes because of this
> So why do
On 7/29/05, Vitor Curado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You assumed right, Stephen: I'm interested in QoS process scheduling,
> sorry for not specifying it...
>
> I'm taking a deeper look at the qlinux, ckrm and the plugsched
> schedulers, if you have any more links, please send them to me...
Also y
On 7/25/05, Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 23:21 -0400, Mace Moneta wrote:
> > The response seems meaningless; does this constitute a violation of
> > GPL?
> > If so what, if any, action needs to be taken?
http://gpl-violations.org/
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licen
On 7/14/05, Eric St-Laurent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 17:24 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Trust me. When I say that the right thing to do is to just have a fixed
> > (but high) HZ value, and just changing the timer rate, I'm -right-.
> Of course you are, jiffies are sim
9 matches
Mail list logo
