>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> while trying to enhance a small hardware inventory script, I found that
>> cpuinfo is missing the details of L1, L2 and L3 size, although they may
>> be available at boot time. One could of cource grep them from "dmesg"
>> output, but that may scroll away on long lived system
"Martin.Knoblauch" wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> while trying to enhance a small hardware inventory script, I found that
> >> cpuinfo is missing the details of L1, L2 and L3 size, although they may
> >> be available at boo
Dave Jones wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 May 2001, Martin Knoblauch wrote:
>
> > They may not be stupid, just mislead :-( When Intel created the "cpuid"
> > Feature some way along the P3 line, they gave a stupid reason for it and
> > created a big public uproar. As silly as I think that was (on both
>
Dave Jones wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 May 2001, Tomas Telensky wrote:
>
> > Yes. Recently I tried to transform whole cpuid code to a userspace
> > utility. Not easy, not clean... but it worked.
>
> See http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/x86info
> or ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/people/davej/x86info/
>
Hi,
while trying to enhance a small hardware inventory script, I found that
cpuinfo is missing the details of L1, L2 and L3 size, although they may
be available at boot time. One could of cource grep them from "dmesg"
output, but that may scroll away on long lived systems.
The following small
Hi,
first of all, I am not complaining, or calling things buggy. I know
that what I am running is "work in progress" and that one gets what one
deserves :-) 2.4.x has been stable for me and given me no severe problem
besides the changed pcmcia/cardbus support somewhere in 2.4.4-acx
Just let me
>While you guys are in there hacking, perhaps consider adding metrics
>which allows you to tell exactly when certain cases and conditions are
>hit.
>page_aged_while_sleeping_in_page_lauder++
>
>Statistics like this are cheap to use in runtime and should provide
>concrete information r
Hi,
just being curious. Since 2.4.4, I am watching my systems memory
behaviour a bit:-) Just recently I realized the following: in the
evening I leave my 128MB system at about 20 MB, 2 MB Buffered and 100 MB
Cached (plus som 40 MB unneccesary swap :-)). When I come back in the
morning, Used is s
Jonathan Morton wrote:
>
> >
> > So, what actually is the difference between Buffered and Cached.
> >Apparently quite a lot of the pages that are Cached in the evening are
> >Buffered 9 houres later.
>
> Think about what happens in the meantime. Most distros install maintenance
> scripts which
Hi,
my DE-620 pccard stopped working after upgrading the kernel from
2.4.3-ac7 to 2.4.4. This is on a Toshiba 4080XCDT. I used the "good"
.config from the 2.4.3-ac7 build to do a make "oldconfig". The symptoms
at startup are:
>PCMCIA: Starting services:
>PCMCIA: using scheme: SuSE
>/lib/modules
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > my DE-620 pccard stopped working after upgrading the kernel from
> > 2.4.3-ac7 to 2.4.4. This is on a Toshiba 4080XCDT. I used the "good"
> > .config from the 2.4.3-ac7 build to do a make "oldconfig". The symptoms
> > at startup are:
>
> 2.4.4 has older pcmcia than 2.4.3-a
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > my DE-620 pccard stopped working after upgrading the kernel from
> > 2.4.3-ac7 to 2.4.4. This is on a Toshiba 4080XCDT. I used the "good"
> > .config from the 2.4.3-ac7 build to do a make "oldconfig". The symptoms
> > at startup are:
>
> 2.4.4 has older pcmcia than 2.4.3-a
"Martin.Knoblauch" wrote:
>
> Alan Cox wrote:
> >
> > > my DE-620 pccard stopped working after upgrading the kernel from
> > > 2.4.3-ac7 to 2.4.4. This is on a Toshiba 4080XCDT. I used the "good"
> > > .config from the 2.4.3-ac7 build
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > my DE-620 pccard stopped working after upgrading the kernel from
> > 2.4.3-ac7 to 2.4.4. This is on a Toshiba 4080XCDT. I used the "good"
> > .config from the 2.4.3-ac7 build to do a make "oldconfig". The symptoms
> > at startup are:
>
> 2.4.4 has older pcmcia than 2.4.3-a
David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> >
> > I am not sure whether this should be closed alltogether. Maybe
> > i82365 was not the proper choice for my hardware in the first place.
> > Anyway, the module seems to be retired as of 2.4.3-ac10/ac11. Maybe a
> > hint should go into th
Hi,
is it normal that the size of /proc/kcore grows over time? Directly
after a boot it has the size of the physical memory. Over time it seems
to grow slightly. In about a day it went from 192 MB to about 203 MB.
This is 2.4.4-ac6 running on a Toshiba Notebook.
I ask, because I thought the si
"J . A . Magallon" wrote:
>
> On 05.11 Martin.Knoblauch wrote:
> >
> > I ask, because I thought the size of kproc could be used to determine
> > the amount of physical memory. If this assumption is wrong, is there
> > another way to achive the goal?
Hi,
this is most likely just a small issue. If I knew where to look, I
would try to fix it and submit a patch :-)
When I diff config files pocessed by "make [old]config" and "make
menueconfig", it seems that menuconfig is not writing out some of the
"comments" that the other versions do write.
Bjorn Wesen wrote:
>
> While we're on cosmetics... how about imprisonment for the person who
> chose yellow on light grey for the first letters in each option...
>
> /Bjorn
>
> On Thu, 17 May 2001, Martin.Knoblauch wrote:
> > this is most likely just a small i
"Martin.Knoblauch" wrote:
>
>
> Not sure whether this is worth to put into the next release - maybe
> someone can spend two minutes to crosscheck.
>
This looks more complete.
lx/linux > diff -u scripts/Menuconfig.orig scripts/Menuconfig
--- scripts/Menuconfig.
Hi,
apparently the method to find out the version of the reiserfs[progs]
mentioned in above file does not produce any result at all.
# reiserfsck 2>&1|grep reiserfsprogs
reports nothing. If I look at the output "manually", there does not
seem to be any version in there.
Martin
--
--
Hi,
I submitted this a short while ago, only to realize later that the
subject line was not very informative. Sorry.
As a suggestion: maybe the reiser-tools should support the common
-V/--version flag
Martin
"Martin.Knoblauch" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> apparently the
"Martin.Knoblauch" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I submitted this a short while ago, only to realize later that the
> subject line was not very informative. Sorry.
>
> As a suggestion: maybe the reiser-tools should support the common
> -V/--version flag
>
> Mart
23 matches
Mail list logo
