Re: 2.4.1-test10

2001-01-23 Thread Ed Tomlinson
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: >On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: >> Any technical reason why the background page aging fix was not applied? >Because I have not heard anybody claim that it makes a huge difference.. Linus, Marcelo's changes make a difference here - enoug

Re: 2.4.1-test10

2001-01-23 Thread Marcelo Tosatti
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote: > Just my nickel on the issue. Andre, This patch I'm talking about is for a different issue from what was discussed in the IO clustering thread. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [E

Re: 2.4.1-test10

2001-01-23 Thread Andre Hedrick
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > > Any technical reason why the background page aging fix was not applied? > > Because I have not heard anybody claim that it makes a huge difference.. Linus, If it could help speed up the page

Re: 2.4.1-test10

2001-01-23 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > Any technical reason why the background page aging fix was not applied? Because I have not heard anybody claim that it makes a huge difference.. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in

Re: 2.4.1-test10

2001-01-23 Thread Ben Ford
Jeff Garzik wrote: > David Ford wrote: > > > > Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > The ChangeLog may not be 100% complete. The physically big things are the > > > PPC and ACPI updates, even if most people won't notice. > > > > > > Linus > > > > > > > > > > > > pre10: > > > - got

Re: NETDEV timeout on tulips [was: Re: 2.4.1-test10]

2001-01-23 Thread Jeff Garzik
David Ford wrote: > > > > Do the tulip driver updates address the increasingly common NETDEV timeout > > > repots? > > > > In general you can answer this yourself by reading > > drivers/net/tulip/ChangeLog. > > > > I don't see increasingly common timeout reports.. with which hardware? > > They ar

Re: 2.4.1-test10

2001-01-23 Thread Jeff Garzik
Jonathan Earle wrote: > Have you looked at the packet loss issue on the Znyx 4port cards? Even > using the latest tulip driver, packet loss is still apparent with moderate > loads. I replied privately; but I just wanted to add that bug reports for the in-kernel Tulip driver should be sent to the

RE: 2.4.1-test10

2001-01-23 Thread Jonathan Earle
> -Original Message- > From: Jeff Garzik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Do the tulip driver updates address the increasingly common > NETDEV timeout > > repots? > > I don't see increasingly common timeout reports.. with which > hardware? > They are likely on the newer LinkSys 4.1 card

Re: NETDEV timeout on tulips [was: Re: 2.4.1-test10]

2001-01-23 Thread David Ford
Matti Aarnio wrote: > I think they are separate problems. > The first is power-management suspend/resume issue, and possibly > PCMCIA problem at software re-insert of card (which never was taken > out *physically*). > > If I pull the cardbus card out, make sure the "dhcpcd eth0" has >

Re: NETDEV timeout on tulips [was: Re: 2.4.1-test10]

2001-01-23 Thread Matti Aarnio
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 11:13:48AM +, David Ford wrote: > > > The three cardbus cards are slightly different in numerous ways. For > > > them they normally fault with an APM event, an eject/insert cycle via > > > software will reset hem and a link down/up won't fix it. For the PCI > > >

Re: NETDEV timeout on tulips [was: Re: 2.4.1-test10]

2001-01-23 Thread David Ford
Matti Aarnio wrote: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 10:48:16AM +, David Ford wrote: > > The three cardbus cards are slightly different in numerous ways. For > > them they normally fault with an APM event, an eject/insert cycle via > > software will reset hem and a link down/up won't fix it. For t

Re: NETDEV timeout on tulips [was: Re: 2.4.1-test10]

2001-01-23 Thread Matti Aarnio
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 10:48:16AM +, David Ford wrote: > The three cardbus cards are slightly different in numerous ways. For > them they normally fault with an APM event, an eject/insert cycle via > software will reset hem and a link down/up won't fix it. For the PCI > cards most times a l

NETDEV timeout on tulips [was: Re: 2.4.1-test10]

2001-01-23 Thread David Ford
> > Do the tulip driver updates address the increasingly common NETDEV timeout > > repots? > > In general you can answer this yourself by reading > drivers/net/tulip/ChangeLog. > > I don't see increasingly common timeout reports.. with which hardware? > They are likely on the newer LinkSys 4.1 car

Re: 2.4.1-test10

2001-01-22 Thread Jeff Garzik
David Ford wrote: > > Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > The ChangeLog may not be 100% complete. The physically big things are the > > PPC and ACPI updates, even if most people won't notice. > > > > Linus > > > > > > > > pre10: > > - got a few too-new R128 #defines in the Radeon m

Re: 2.4.1-test10

2001-01-22 Thread Marcelo Tosatti
Any technical reason why the background page aging fix was not applied? On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > The ChangeLog may not be 100% complete. The physically big things are the > PPC and ACPI updates, even if most people won't notice. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the lin

Re: 2.4.1-test10

2001-01-22 Thread Derek Wildstar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I am having ACPI problems with a dell inspiron 5000e, I hear it has a broken implementation of APM, so could quite possibly have a broken ACPI also. When ACPI is enabled in the kernel (-pre10 and earlier ones also) the system soft-hangs after loading

Re: 2.4.1-test10

2001-01-22 Thread David Ford
Linus Torvalds wrote: > The ChangeLog may not be 100% complete. The physically big things are the > PPC and ACPI updates, even if most people won't notice. > > Linus > > > > pre10: > - got a few too-new R128 #defines in the Radeon merge. Fix. > - tulip driver update from Je