>Well, I've found that VM-global patch before, of course. Until now, the
> last version was against pre18. Since I do not know the exact rules for
> including new things into Alan's tree, I thought that VM-global patch was
> already included in pre24. Sorry for my lack of experience. ;-)) I sh
> "I'm sure" meaning "I didn't test it" ?
absolutely, I believed that the driver was *exactly*
the same as the previous release which didn't boot and
needed the fix, but another fix has been applied and
corrected it. Now I think it will work with a clean
2.2.18pre25. Anyway, I left a kernel compi
> > Bad day, Alan? ;)
> Umm no but having people _keep_ sending you do
> nothing patches gets annoying after a while ;)
Please accept all my apologies, Alan. When I quickly
sent you the last patch, I didn't notice that some
other broken code had been removed, what I discovered
later back home and
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
# On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 06:02:57PM +0100, Martin Kacer wrote:
# >Is there any chance to get rid of these VMM failures?
# You should apply this patch on top of 2.2.18pre25:
# ftp://.../VM-global-2.2.18pre25-7.bz2
Well, I've found that VM-global
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 10:47:46AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> |Bus 0, device 2, function 1:
> | Unknown class: Intel OEM MegaRAID Controller (rev 5).
> |Medium devsel. Fast back-to-back capable. BIST capable. IRQ 10. Master
> Capable. Latency=64.
> |Prefetchable 32 bit memor
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 06:02:57PM +0100, Martin Kacer wrote:
>Is there any chance to get rid of these VMM failures?
You should apply this patch on top of 2.2.18pre25:
ftp://ftp.us.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea/patches/v2.2/2.2.18pre25/VM-global-2.2.18pre25-7.bz2
>I
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
# >Is there any chance to get rid of these VMM failures?
# By finding them.
:-) I am not so familiar with MM in Linux. :^(
And do not have enough time for intensive study...
Although I would probably like that work...
# Are you confident you are
>We aplied 2.2.18pre25 patch yesterday hoping it could solve it. The
> only difference is that the server reached several hours uptime instead of
> 40 minutes (with pre24). After two hours of load between 6.00 and 15.00
> the console was flooded with those unpopular messages ("VM: ..."). The
>
> > Some days I don't know why I bother
> Bad day, Alan? ;)
Umm no but having people _keep_ sending you do nothing patches gets
annoying after a while ;)
> reading the patch, it makes sense. It probably does about the same
> as Willy's patch, but the "right" way by using pci_resource_start()
> w
> as soon as I can reboot it, I promise I will test the
> kernel with and without the patch to be really sure.
> but before that, if people who have problems with
> megaraid/netraid could give it a try, that would be
> cool. Also, it would be nice if people for which the
> normal megaraid driver w
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
# Ok we believe the VM crash looping printing error messages is now fixed.
# Marcelo finally figured it out and my 8Mb 486 has been running 2.2.18pre
# with that fix and stably[1].
Unfortunately, I don't think it is fixed. We maintain a heavy loaded
FTP/Sam
According to Alan Cox:
> > my server currently works with that patch, but I'm sure it won't boot anymore
> > if I apply this 2.2.18pre25 alone.
>
> Some days I don't know why I bother
Bad day, Alan? ;)
> > just in case, here it is again.
> It doesnt even apply
Hmm, it did apply for me. Do new
> It doesnt even apply
sorry Alan, I think it's because I had to copy/paste
it
with my mouse under X into my browser (I don't have
smtp access here at work), and it applies here with a
-12 lines offset...
Here it is attached for 2.2.18pre25, but since the
raid
server is running now (under 2.2.18
> my server currently works with that patch, but I'm sure it won't boot anymore
> if I apply this 2.2.18pre25 alone.
Some days I don't know why I bother
> just in case, here it is again.
It doesnt even apply
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the
> I asked people to explain why it was needed. I am still waiting. It is a
> patch that does nothing. I will not put random deep magic into the
> kernel.
Alan, I replied to you a few weeks ago (pre20 times) when you asked me why
I was sending you this patch. (perhaps you didn't receive my email).
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Excellent. I've been trying to avoid VM fixes for 2.2.18 to stop stuff getting
>muddled together and hard to debug. Running with page aging convinces me that
>2.2.19 we need to sort some of the vm issues out badly, and make it
> (note: the above is outdated so it's not anymore suggested for inclusion of
> course)
>
> I sumbitted most of the not-feature-oriented stuff at pre2 time and I plan to
> re-submit after 2.2.18 is released.
Excellent. I've been trying to avoid VM fixes for 2.2.18 to stop stuff getting
muddled t
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 12:27:58AM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> The problem is its hard to know which of your patches depend on what, and
> the complete set is large to say the least.
That's why I use a `proposed' directory that only contains patches that can be
applied to your tree, in this case it
> Such bug can't generate crashes. Did you ever reproduced crashes on your 8Mb
> 486 with 2.2.18pre24?
Yes. Every 20 minutes or so quite reliably. With that change it has yet to
crash (its actually running that + page aging + another minor tweak so it
doesnt return success on page aging until we
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 08:03:00PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> Ok we believe the VM crash looping printing error messages is now fixed.
Such bug can't generate crashes. Did you ever reproduced crashes on your 8Mb
486 with 2.2.18pre24?
> Marcelo finally figured it out and my 8Mb 486 has been runn
> Megaraid still needs fixing. I sent you the patch twice, so have
> other people, but it still isn't fixed. The
I asked people to explain why it was needed. I am still waiting. It is a
patch that does nothing. I will not put random deep magic into the kernel.
I have no reason to believe the cu
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So I figure this is it for 2.2.18, subject to evidence to the contrary
Megaraid still needs fixing. I sent you the patch twice, so have
other people, but it still isn't fixed. The
megaBase &= PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK;
...
m
22 matches
Mail list logo
