Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
On 12/22/05, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thursday 22 December 2005 18:49, Martin Tessun wrote:
Johannes Berg wrote:
On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 17:51 +0100, Martin Tessun wrote:
At least you get them inserted ;) When I try to modprobe rate_control I
[patch 3/3] s390: remove redundant and useless code in qeth
From: Frank Pavlic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- remove redundant and useless code in qeth for
procfs operations.
- update Revision numbers
Signed-off-by: Frank Pavlic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diffstat:
qeth_main.
[patch 2/3] s390: minor qeth network driver fixes
From: Frank Pavlic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- use netif_carrier_on/off calls to tell network stack
link carrier state
- fix possible kfree on NULL
- PDU_LEN2 is at offset 0x29 otherwise OSN chpid won't initialize
Si
Hi Jeff,
I am not sure if my first try did make his way since I had some fights with my
exim4 configuration.
Anyway I resend the patches .
Thanks
Frank
[patch 1/3] s390: some minor qeth driver fixes
From: Frank Pavlic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- let's have just one function for both ,input
From: Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 21:53:25 +0100
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 07:29:36PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Mid-term I plan to restructure the file_operations so that we don't need
> > to have all these duplicate aio and vectored versions. This patch
Slight modification. The benchmark was limited to 32 bit values,
and tcp_cubic does cube_root(x * K). I modified the benchmark
program to generate these more typical numbers and reran.
Also since numbers are larger just use 64 bit divide on 64 bit cpu.
Original-Bisect Optimize-Bi
Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
drivers/net/chelsio/cpl5_cmd.h |6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--- linux-vanilla/drivers/net/chelsio/cpl5_cmd.h2005-12-22
17:04:34.0 +0300
+++ linux-endian/drivers/net/chelsio/cpl5_cmd.h 2005-1
Hi,
forcedeth called pci_map_single() with size==0 in the rx codepath. This
might explain the crashes on x86-64.
The attached patch fixes that. Who saw data corruptions? Are they fixed
by the attached patch?
--
Manfred
--- 2.6/drivers/net/forcedeth.c 2005-12-19 01:36:54.0 +0100
+++
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 07:29:36PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Mid-term I plan to restructure the file_operations so that we don't need
> to have all these duplicate aio and vectored versions. This patch is
> a small step in that direction but also a worthwile cleanup on it's own:
>
> (1) i
From: "Jaco Kroon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:59:23 +0200 (SAST)
> static variables should not be explicitly initialised to 0. This causes
> them to be placed in .data instead of .bss. This patch de-initialises 3
> static variables in net/core/pktgen.c.
>
> There are approxim
From: Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:55:06 +0100
> This patch makes sure a 'struct proto_ops' can be declared as const, so that
> all cpus can share all parts of it without false sharing.
...
> This should reduce the possibility of false sharing on SMP, and speedup so
From: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:58:04 +0100
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 11:15:17PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> > From: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 08:10:29 +0100
> >
> > > sock_init can be done as a core_initcall instead of calling
>
From: Sridhar Samudrala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:21:50 -0800 (PST)
> Actually 1 out of the 3 patches is a bugfix and it will be good if it can
> go into 2.6.15. The other 2 add new features and can go into 2.6.16.
>
> I am including this patch so that you can consider it for
On 12/22/05, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 22 December 2005 18:49, Martin Tessun wrote:
> > Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 17:51 +0100, Martin Tessun wrote:
> > >
> > >> At least you get them inserted ;) When I try to modprobe rate_control I
> > >> get th
John W. Linville wrote:
I am now... :-) But, I still don't seem to see any problem. Are there
specific tests I should run?
It crashes for me, too:
- nForce 3-250 Gb, in 100 mbit mode
- slab debugging on
- iommu debug and iommu leak enabled
- x86-64
- tx works.
- rx crashes.
Test case: "p
On Thursday 22 December 2005 18:49, Martin Tessun wrote:
> Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 17:51 +0100, Martin Tessun wrote:
> >
> >> At least you get them inserted ;) When I try to modprobe rate_control I
> >> get the following:
> >
> > insmod 80211 first.
> >
> > johannes
>
>
Johannes Berg wrote:
On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 17:51 +0100, Martin Tessun wrote:
At least you get them inserted ;) When I try to modprobe rate_control I
get the following:
insmod 80211 first.
johannes
No, this ist not the problem.
When inserting 80211 I get the same message;
kernel: 80211: ie
On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 17:51 +0100, Martin Tessun wrote:
> At least you get them inserted ;) When I try to modprobe rate_control I
> get the following:
insmod 80211 first.
johannes
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The combination of the latest devicescape stack ( 051221 )
and latest dscape branch makes my Powerbook hard lock after
rmmod the kernel modules and stopping wpa_supplicant.
Basicly i do the following before it hard locks :
rmmod bcm43xx
killall wpa_supplicant 2>/dev/n
From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 18:23:25 +0900 (JST)
> Unless __LINK_STATE_NOCARRIER is expicitly set on dev->state,
> netif_carrier_ok(dev) is true.
> It is {set,reset} by the drivers using netif_carrier_{off,on}(dev),
> respectively.
> Since legacy drivers do n
From: "David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:56:05 -0800 (PST)
> + while (tail)
> + tail = tail->next;
Of course this is buggy, it should be:
while (tail->next)
tail = tail->next;
So if you test ple
From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:52:09 -0800
> From: Charles-Edouard Ruault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [BUG] kernel 2.6.14.2 breaks IPSEC
Herbert's reply at the end of the thread explains that what the user
is doing, applying SNAT to IPSEC, has undefined resul
At Wed, 21 Dec 2005 23:15:57 -0800,
Greg KH wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 02:13:20AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > The following bug in the kernel Bugzilla contains a regressions in
> > 2.6.15-rc without a patch:
> > - #5760 No sound with snd_intel8x0 & ALi M5455 chipset
> > (kobject
Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
>
> That sounds very fishy -- are you 100% sure that the person doing the
> s/Proprietary/BSD/ was in fact authorized to do so? (This is one reason
> why I'd love to see someone @intel.com submit this code upstream, BTW.)
FWIW, the parts of the IXP400 Access Library rele
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Thu, 22 Dec 2005 03:54:29 -0500), Jeff
Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> I'm not sure all drivers have been converted to use netif_carrier_ok(),
> which would imply that IPv6 would now be broken on all drivers that do
> not yet support it?
I don't think so.
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The following bugs in the kernel Bugzilla [1] contain regressions in
> 2.6.15-rc compared to 2.6.14 with patches:
Thanks for tracking this. Although I fear it won't come to much.
non-bugzilla post-2.6.14 bugs which I've squirelled away include:
From:
26 matches
Mail list logo
