Hi,
On Thursday, 3 of March 2005 00:54, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > It seems that we write to the BIOS while moving the image, at least on
> > > > my box,
> > > > which is quite not correct, IMO.
> > [-- snip --]
> > > >
> > > > IMO this may lead to unexpected results, like the mysterio
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 15:57:18 +0900, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello, Jens.
>
> Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 03 2005, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >
> >> Hello, Bartlomiej.
> >>
> >> This patch fixes ide_dma_intr() oops which occurs for TASKFILE ioctl
> >>using DMA dataphses. This is aga
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 02:52:21AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 2.6.x.y has a very real engineering benefit: it becomes a stable
> release branch. That will encourage even more users to test it, over
> and above a simple release naming change.
>
> Users have been clamoring for a stable release
On Thu, Mar 03 2005, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 15:57:18 +0900, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hello, Jens.
> >
> > Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 03 2005, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hello, Bartlomiej.
> > >>
> > >> This patch fixes ide_dma_intr() oo
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 08:50:08PM +0100, Miguelanxo Otero Salgueiro wrote:
>- Setting randomly "last battery full charge" to a huge value
> (example: 400 Ah when max battery capacity is 38 Ah) so I get random
> charging/discharging timing patterns
Happens to me sometime (and misdetection o
Hello
On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 21:32, Alexander Gran wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Whatever happens here, we need - at least - lower
> the amount of log generatet. This is not really handy...
> lsusb still lists the disk
> syslog can be found (as soon as syslogd finished...;) at
> http://zodiac.dnsalias.org/mis
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 09:05:19 +0100, Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03 2005, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 15:57:18 +0900, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hello, Jens.
> > >
> > > Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 03 2005, Tejun Heo wro
> "David" == David Mosberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
David> At the risk of asking the obvious: what's preventing genalloc
David> to be implemented in terms of mempool?
David,
Taking another look at mempool, there's several reasons why mempool
isn't well suited for this job.
Basically fo
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 05:15:36PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> The thing is, I _do_ believe the current setup is working reasonably well.
> But I also do know that some people (a fairly small group, but anyway)
> seem to want an extra level of stability - although those people seem to
> not
On Thu, Mar 03 2005, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 09:05:19 +0100, Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 03 2005, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > > On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 15:57:18 +0900, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Hello, Jens.
> > > >
>
Greg KH wrote:
Sure they've been asking for it, but I think they really don't know what
it entails. Look at all of the "non-stable" type patches in the -ac and
as tree. There's a lot of stuff in there. It's a slippery slope down
when trying to say, "I'm only going to accept bug fixes."
We have
> "Greg" == Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Greg> On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 02:52:21AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Users have been clamoring for a stable release branch in any case,
>> as you see from comments about Alan's -ac and an LKML user's -as
>> kernels.
Greg> Sure they've been aski
This corrected the problem on 2.4.29. Thanks Marcelo and all for your
help.
Mark
-Original Message-
From: Marcelo Tosatti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 02 March 2005 12:04
To: Mark Yeatman
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Problems with SCSI tape rewind
Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 05:15:36PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
The thing is, I _do_ believe the current setup is working reasonably well.
But I also do know that some people (a fairly small group, but anyway)
seem to want an extra level of stability - although those people seem
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 03:28:22AM -0500, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>
> Greg> So, while I like the _idea_ of the 2.6.x.y type releases, having
> Greg> those releases contain anything but a handful of patches will
> Greg> quickly get quite messy.
>
> Wouldn't this actually happen automatically simply by
--- Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Linus,
>
> For a long time, I've been hoping/asking for a more frequent
> stable/unstable cycle, so clearly you can count my vote on this one
> (eventhough it might count for close to zero). This is a very good step
> towards a better stability
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 03:27:42AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> >Sure they've been asking for it, but I think they really don't know what
> >it entails. Look at all of the "non-stable" type patches in the -ac and
> >as tree. There's a lot of stuff in there. It's a slippery slope
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 03:38:22AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> The pertinent question for a point release (2.6.X.Y) would simply be
> "does a 2.6.11 user really need this fix?"
"need this fix bad enough now, or can it wait until 2.6.12?"
> >Like I previously said, I think we're doing a great job
Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> So... the big "how it all works" comment needs an update..
Same patch, comment updated.
Currently page_cache_readahead() treats ra->size == 0 (first read)
and ra->size == -1 (ra_off was called) separately, but does exactly
the same in both cases.
With this patch we may
from what I have been able to find under /Documentation /proc/loadavg is
defined as giving three loadaverage numbers, 1 min, 5 min, 15 min.
however as of 2.6.5ish timeframe there are a coupld of additional colums
that do not appear to be documented
the first is something #/# that could be # of
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 12:53:53AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> And sometimes, people really want those "big" fixes, and they switch to
> using the bk-usb patchset, or the bk-scsi patchset. That happens a lot
> for when distros work to stabilize their release kernels.
For those that have no intent
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The reasons -rcs are not as good as they could be is that they include
> more than just bug fixes.
I thought we'd been fairly good about that, actually. The -rc1's always
come too early for me (I usually wait for all the bk merges to happen).
But once
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 01:13:38AM -0800, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> on den 02.03.2005 Klokka 09:18 (+0100) skreiv Andi Kleen:
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:46:23AM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > > Bernd Schubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > Hmm, after compiling with -D_FILE_OFFSET_B
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 07:37:44PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
[snip]
> > 2.6.x-pre: bugfixes and features
> > 2.6.x-rc: bugfixes only
>
> And the reason it does _not_ work is that all the people we want testing
> sure as _hell_ won't be testing -rc versi
Andrew Morton writes:
> Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Do you have any objections to merging FUSE in mainline kernel?
>
> I was planning on sending FUSE into Linus in a week or two. That and
> cpusets are the notable features which are 2.6.12 candidates.
>
> - crashdum
Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 03:27:42AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
Sure they've been asking for it, but I think they really don't know what
it entails. Look at all of the "non-stable" type patches in the -ac and
as tree. There's a lot of stuff in there. It's a slippery sl
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 08:53:07AM -0800, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> on den 02.03.2005 Klokka 12:33 (+0100) skreiv Bernd Schubert:
>
> > > I can see no good reason for truncating inode number values on platforms
> > > that actually do support 64-bit inode numbers, but I can see several
> >
> > Well
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We have all these problems precisely because _nobody_ is saying "I'm
> only going to accept bug fixes". We _need_ some amount of release
> engineering. Right now we basically have none.
Sorry Jeff, but that's crap. Go look at the commits list. Eve
>
> Comments?
the problem is that this doesn't tackle some of the fundamentals...
yes you have a step in between for extra stabilisation. However during
that phase, the buildup of patch backlogs will keep going on, and the
next "unstable" release is all the more so, because of all the enormous
Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > So... the big "how it all works" comment needs an update..
>
> Same patch, comment updated.
Thanks, is nice.
But I actually meant this comment, from readahead.c:
*
* When readahead is in the off state (size == -1UL
Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 03:38:22AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
The pertinent question for a point release (2.6.X.Y) would simply be
"does a 2.6.11 user really need this fix?"
"need this fix bad enough now, or can it wait until 2.6.12?"
Like I previously said, I think we're doing a g
Andrew Morton wrote:
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We have all these problems precisely because _nobody_ is saying "I'm
only going to accept bug fixes". We _need_ some amount of release
engineering. Right now we basically have none.
Sorry Jeff, but that's crap. Go look at the commits
Mikael Pettersson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Andrew Morton writes:
> > Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Do you have any objections to merging FUSE in mainline kernel?
> >
> > I was planning on sending FUSE into Linus in a week or two. That and
> > cpusets are the no
Added a couple patches, and updated for 2.6.11-release.
BK users:
bk pull bk://gkernel.bkbits.net/libata-dev-2.6
or
bk pull bk://kernel.bkbits.net/jgarzik/libata-dev-2.6
Patch:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/jgarzik/libata/2.6.11-libata-dev1.patch.bz
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 02:52:21AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> even/odd means that certain releases (even ones) are more magical than
> others. That's weird, since users aren't used to that sort of thing in
^^^
> any other projec
Hi Randy,
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> ntfs: Fix printk format warnings on ia64:
Thanks! I will apply it to my tree so it will be in next -mm and then in
next NTFS release in mainline.
ps. You obviously compiled with ntfs debugging enabled... I had never
bothered fixing up those
Hi Jean,
If you have an Asus AS99127F chip, the value reported before in sysfs were
not correct, the new ones are.
This is indeed the case. To be sure I ran unixbench on rc3 and the just
released 2.6.11 en the results were nearly identical. So the temperature
increase does not seems to indicate
Linus Torvalds wrote:
2.6.x-pre: bugfixes and features
2.6.x-rc: bugfixes only
And the reason it does _not_ work is that all the people we want testing
sure as _hell_ won't be testing -rc versions.
Speaking, presumably, as one of those people you are talking about, no,
that is not correct.
Betw
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 01:42 -0800, Barry K. Nathan wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 02:52:21AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > even/odd means that certain releases (even ones) are more magical than
> > others. That's weird, since users aren't used to that sort of thing in
>
this patch for 2.6.11 simply initializes a few spin locks that are being
reported as accessed prior to initalization on an embedded ppc system.
--- cut here ---
--- linux-2.6.11/drivers/serial/cpm_uart/cpm_uart_core.c2004-12-24
22:35:27.0 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.11-sgn/drivers/serial/
Rene Herman wrote:
Doing -pre and real -rc will get you more testers for -rc. Whether or
Add in the fourth level .k releases for real problematic bugs found
after release as you did with 2.6.8.1, and I believe things should work.
Precisely.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 09:53, Andrew Morton wrote:
AurÃlien Francillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
cvs diff Makefile
cvs diff: cannot create read lock in repository
`/mnt/iseran/roca/cvsroot/ldpc': No such file or directory
cvs [diff aborted]: rea
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 10:51:13AM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> it's actually not. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is magical in that you get
> actual support for it (in various degrees, depending on for what level
> you want to pay). That is what sets it appart, not the actual bits.
IMO the bits are
Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Why the hell would I want to look at the link in kwrite?
>>
>>Talk to the USPTO, they created these links from their website. BTW,
>>if you check the verson of web server run on the uspto.gov server,
>>you will discover it is Apache on IBM servers and
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We need to not only produce a useful kernel, but also package it in a
> way that is useful to the direct consumers of the kernel: distros
> [large and small] and power users.
This comes down to the question "what are we making"? Is it an end
product
Randy.Dunlap ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Maybe I don't understand? Is someone expecting distro
> quality/stability from kernel.org kernels?
> I don't, but maybe I'm one of those minorities.
There are few distributors who can sufficiently QA the kernel
they ship. I think only Redhat/Fedora, Novel
Previously Andrew Morton wrote:
> I'd say that mainline kernel.org for the past couple of years has been a
> technology, not a product.
If you consider mainline a technology and distributions your main users,
what is the use of a stable release every months or two months? No
distribution is going
On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 21:28 -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Gene Heskett wrote:
> >On Wednesday 02 March 2005 21:36, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> >>Another Linux patent.
... and another - AFAICS obvious - trivial ("prior art") patent (but I'm
not fluent in patent quak, I'm just a simple systems engi
Gene Heskett schrieb:
> On Wednesday 02 March 2005 20:15, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Greg KH wrote:
>>
>>>I think this statement proves that the current development
>>>situation is working quite well. The nasty breakage and details
>>>got worked out in the -mm tree, and then flo
Hoi :)
I'm still working on fixing and updating the Linux DocBook
Documentation. My tree currently consists of several fixes
to the Documentation generation, some additional kernel-doc
entries and a move from SGML to valid XML.
Please have a look at it and consider merging.
Please do a
Andrew Morton wrote:
Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I observed an oddity on a nfs-mounted fs while using 2.6.11-rc5-mm1.
Could you try this please?
--- 25/fs/nfs/nfs3proc.c~nfsacl-acl-umask-handling-workaround-in-nfs-client-fix
2005-03-02 08:49:59.0 -0800
+++ 25-akpm/fs/n
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 01:21 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
[...]
> It brings up another sore point with me. I'm of the opinion that both
> copyright, and patent, should be granted to the author/inventor on a
> non-transferable basis. He could then sell rights to use it for a
ACK. This would kill
David Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> from what I have been able to find under /Documentation /proc/loadavg is
> defined as giving three loadaverage numbers, 1 min, 5 min, 15 min.
>
> however as of 2.6.5ish timeframe there are a coupld of additional colums
> that do not appear to be docum
As far as I understand the numbering scheme, the 2.5 kernel leads to 2.6
series.
Why not just reactivate the 2.5 kernel (Starting with i.e. 2.5.112 which
will lead to 2.6.12)?
There will be no change visible to end-users and developers - IMO - are
more flexible in any case.
(I know I totally ign
DocBook: remove reference to drivers/net/net_init.c
This file has been removed and is breaking documentation generation.
Signed-off-by: Martin Waitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More maj
[DocBook] escape declaration_purpose
Signed-off-by: Martin Waitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
# This is a BitKeeper generated patch for the following project:
# Project Name: Linux kernel tree
# This patch format is intended for GNU patch command version 2.5 or higher.
# This patch includes the following
DocBook: move kernel-doc comment next to function
Signed-off-by: Martin Waitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
# This is a BitKeeper generated patch for the following project:
# Project Name: Linux kernel tree
# This patch format is intended for GNU patch command version 2.5 or higher.
# This patch includes t
DocBook: fix XML in templates
Signed-off-by: Martin Waitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
# This is a BitKeeper generated patch for the following project:
# Project Name: Linux kernel tree
# This patch format is intended for GNU patch command version 2.5 or higher.
# This patch includes the following deltas:
DocBook: s/sgml/xml/ in scripts/kernel-doc
Signed-off-by: Martin Waitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
# This is a BitKeeper generated patch for the following project:
# Project Name: Linux kernel tree
# This patch format is intended for GNU patch command version 2.5 or higher.
# This patch includes the foll
[DocBook] add kfifo to kernel-api docs
Signed-off-by: Martin Waitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
# This is a BitKeeper generated patch for the following project:
# Project Name: Linux kernel tree
# This patch format is intended for GNU patch command version 2.5 or higher.
# This patch includes the followin
[DocBook] kernel-docify comments
Signed-off-by: Martin Waitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
# This is a BitKeeper generated patch for the following project:
# Project Name: Linux kernel tree
# This patch format is intended for GNU patch command version 2.5 or higher.
# This patch includes the following delt
DocBook: s/sgml/xml/ in Documentation/DocBook/Makefile
Signed-off-by: Martin Waitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
# This is a BitKeeper generated patch for the following project:
# Project Name: Linux kernel tree
# This patch format is intended for GNU patch command version 2.5 or higher.
# This patch inclu
DocBook: allow preprocessor directives between kernel-doc and function
Signed-off-by: Martin Waitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-i
[DocBook] factor out escaping of XML special characters
Signed-off-by: Martin Waitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
# This is a BitKeeper generated patch for the following project:
# Project Name: Linux kernel tree
# This patch format is intended for GNU patch command version 2.5 or higher.
# This patch incl
DocBook: update function parameter description in network code
Signed-off-by: Martin Waitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
# This is a BitKeeper generated patch for the following project:
# Project Name: Linux kernel tree
# This patch format is intended for GNU patch command version 2.5 or higher.
# This pat
DocBook: allow preprocessor directives between kernel-doc and function
Signed-off-by: Martin Waitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
# This is a BitKeeper generated patch for the following project:
# Project Name: Linux kernel tree
# This patch format is intended for GNU patch command version 2.5 or higher.
#
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 02:15 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> If we were to get serious with maintenance of 2.6.x.y streams then that is
> a 100% productisation activity. It's a very useful activity, and there is
> demand for it.
Correct. That's what -ac and -as kernels try to achieve. Moving those
a
hoi :)
I just tested my little script that can send changesets per mail.
okok, it still had a bug when I first tested it but that should be
fixed now.
If anyone is interested (perhaps for Documentation/BK-usage), here it
is:
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
# after sending an announcement (created by Docume
Static initialization of spin locks that are otherwise accessed prior to
initialization.
Signed-off-by: Jaka MoÄnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- linux-2.6.11/drivers/serial/cpm_uart/cpm_uart_core.c2005-03-03
12:07:17.482520924 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.11-sgn/drivers/serial/cpm_uart/cpm_uart_core.c
I haven't found any possible modular usage of pcibios_penalize_isa_irq
in the kernel.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
This patch was already sent on:
- 21 Jan 2005
arch/i386/kernel/i386_ksyms.c|1 -
arch/sh/kernel/sh_ksyms.c|1 -
arch/x86_64/kernel/x8664
I haven't found any possible modular usage of dmi_get_system_info in the
kernel.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
This patch was already sent on:
- 21 Jan 2005
--- linux-2.6.11-rc1-mm2-full/arch/i386/kernel/dmi_scan.c.old 2005-01-20
23:37:44.0 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.1
Initialize the mdio_lock spin lock in mii_info struct, which is
otherwise accessed prior to initialization.
Signed-off-by: Jaka MoÄnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- linux-2.6.11/drivers/net/gianfar.c 2005-03-03 10:36:51.0 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.11-sgn/drivers/net/gianfar.c 2005-03-03 10:36:3
Hi.
Here's a patch I've prepared which improves the speed at which memory is
freed prior to suspend. It should be a big gain for swsusp. For
suspend2, it isn't used much, but has shown big improvements when I set
a very low image size limit and had memory quite full.
Signed-Off-By: Nigel Cunningh
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 02:15:06AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > We need to not only produce a useful kernel, but also package it in a
> > way that is useful to the direct consumers of the kernel: distros
> > [large and small] and power users.
>
Martin Waitz wrote:
Hoi :)
I'm still working on fixing and updating the Linux DocBook
Documentation. My tree currently consists of several fixes
to the Documentation generation, some additional kernel-doc
entries and a move from SGML to valid XML.
Please have a look at it and consider merging.
Ov
On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 19:37 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> > If we want a calming period, we need to do development like 2.4.x is
> > done today. It's sane, understandable and it works.
>
> No. It's insane, and the only reason it works is that 2.4
krishna wrote:
Hi All,
I have a strange problem.
The Audio driver is statically compiled into the kernel.
When I am loading my MMC driver, It is getting Audio Interrupts.
I browsed thru the web and found out it is a bug in the hardware.
The hardware bug is preventing Audio driver and MMC driver wor
Linus Torvalds wrote:
In other words, we'd have an increasing level of instability with an odd
release number, depending on how long-term the instability is.
- 2.6.: even at all levels, aim for having had minimally intrusive
patches leading up to it (timeframe: a week or two)
with the odd num
Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Here's a patch I've prepared which improves the speed at which memory is
> freed prior to suspend. It should be a big gain for swsusp.
Patch is simple enough but, as always, please back up an optimization patch
with quantitative test results.
-
To
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 11:31:36AM +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 01:21 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> [...]
> > It brings up another sore point with me. I'm of the opinion that both
> > copyright, and patent, should be granted to the author/inventor on a
> > non-transfera
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Russell Miller wrote:
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 19:37, Linus Torvalds wrote:
That's the whole point here, at least to me. I want to have people test
things out, but it doesn't matter how many -rc kernels I'd do, it just
won't happen. It's not a "real release".
In contrast, maki
Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
I think the .EVEN and .ODD proposal would work a lot better than -rc ever
would/could.
...until people find out the "secret" that .ODD is really beta. Then we
are back where we started.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kern
Rather than mixing problem and solution, let me just define the two
problems in this thread:
1) There is no clear, CONSISTENT point where "bugfixes only" begins.
Right now, it could be -rc2, -rc3, -rc4... who knows.
We need to send a clear signal to users "this is when you can really
start ham
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jes Sorensen) wrote:
>
> This patch introduces ia64 specific read/write handlers for /dev/mem
> access which is needed to avoid uncached pages to be accessed through
> the cached kernel window which can lead to random corruption.
This patch causes hiccups on my ia32e box.
lin
Dear All,
I have a doubt about __get_dma_pages. When I am trying to allocate the
memory to a DMA buffer using the __get_dma_pages it is failed.
I am using the 2.4.18-3 kernel version?
The System contains 128MB RAM. I tried with 256MB RAM also.
What are the reasons to fail the __get_dma_pages c
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Previously Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I'd say that mainline kernel.org for the past couple of years has been a
> > technology, not a product.
>
> If you consider mainline a technology and distributions your main users,
> what is the use of a stable
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > I think the .EVEN and .ODD proposal would work a lot better than -rc ever
> > would/could.
>
> ...until people find out the "secret" that .ODD is really beta. Then we are
> back where we started.
Ah, but you are assuming peop
Simple program to test fork() performance.
#include
#include
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int pid;
int i = 0, max = 10;
struct timeval tv0, tv1;
struct timezone tz;
long diff;
if (argc >= 2)
max = atoi(argv[1]);
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Do you have any objections to merging FUSE in mainline kernel?
>
> I was planning on sending FUSE into Linus in a week or two.
I would certainly vote for FUSE going in. Even if it has some bits that
cou
DocBook: update function parameter description in block/fs code
Signed-off-by: Martin Waitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
# This is a BitKeeper generated patch for the following project:
# Project Name: Linux kernel tree
# This patch format is intended for GNU patch command version 2.5 or higher.
# This pa
DocBook: remove reference to drivers/net/net_init.c
This file has been removed and is breaking documentation generation.
Signed-off-by: Martin Waitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
# This is a BitKeeper generated patch for the following project:
# Project Name: Linux kernel tree
# This patch format is intend
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 11:29:07 +0100, Prakash Punnoor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> And if you want bug reports, make it easier for the user. I know there is a
> txt file in the kernel src dir, but it would be better, if there would be a
> complete script which gets all possible need infos itsel
On Mer, 2005-03-02 at 22:28, Dave Jones wrote:
> The winchips had a funky feature where you could mark system ram
> writes as out-of-order. This led to something like a 25% speedup iirc
> on benchmarks that did lots of memory copying. lmbench showed
> significant wins iirc, but any results I had sa
Jivin James Morris lays it down ...
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, David McCullough wrote:
>
> > As for permission to use a dual license, I will gladly approach the
> > authors if others feel it is important to know the possibility of it at this
> > point,
>
> Please do so. It would be useful to have
On Thursday 03 March 2005 11:57, Jaka MoÄnik wrote:
> this patch for 2.6.11 simply initializes a few spin locks that are being
> reported as accessed prior to initalization on an embedded ppc system.
Please, split'em. Put Signed-off-by right after changelog comment and
_before_ the patch.
> --- c
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> > If we want a calming period, we need to do development like 2.4.x is
> > done today. It's sane, understandable and it works.
>
> No. It's insane, and the only reason it works is that 2.4.x is a totally
>
On Wednesday March 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 23:46:22 -0500 Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If Linus/DaveM really don't like -pre/-rc naming, I think 2.6.x.y is
> > preferable to even/odd.
>
> All of these arguments are circular. If people think that even/od
DocBook: new kernel-doc comments for might_sleep & wait_event_*
Signed-off-by: Martin Waitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
# This is a BitKeeper generated patch for the following project:
# Project Name: Linux kernel tree
# This patch format is intended for GNU patch command version 2.5 or higher.
# This pa
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 14:51 +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> Simple program to test fork() performance.
...
In a bit more advanced version it checks for error value,
but it never happend.
It can also have more fine grained measurment,
but IMHO the picture is clear for small systems.
> Creating 10
OK - I have the patch working now, but there seems to be a flaw in the
address reporting. When I look up the reported address in
/proc/kallsyms, then look in the objdump of the module, the reported
adress _does_not_ point to a call.
Am I missing something simple here?
Justin
Andrew Morton wrote
1 - 100 of 526 matches
Mail list logo
