On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 09:33 +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 07:56:58PM -0600, Wenji Wu wrote:
> > Yes, when CONFIG_PREEMPT is disabled, the "problem" won't happen. That is
> > why I put "for 2.6 desktop, low-latency desktop" in the uploaded paper.
> > This "problem" happ
How in the heck did I get on the CC list for this? ;-)
Lee
On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 16:54 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6735
> >
> >Summary: network connection does not survive APM suspend and
> >
On Fri, 2006-05-12 at 01:53 +0200, Brice Goglin wrote:
> Francois Romieu wrote:
> >
> >> + spin_lock(&mgp->cmd_lock);
> >> + response->result = 0x;
> >> + mb();
> >> + myri10ge_pio_copy((void __iomem *) cmd_addr, buf, sizeof (*buf));
> >> +
> >> + /* wait up to 2 seconds */
> >>
>
On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 21:34 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:03:14PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 12:06 +0100, Mws wrote:
> > > hi,
> > > as i do have the same problem i may help you out.
> > >
> > > at
On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 12:06 +0100, Mws wrote:
> hi,
> as i do have the same problem i may help you out.
>
> at first, syskonnect did send their kernel diffs/patches but they
> we're rejected caused
> by coding style, indention and some people thinking that things can be
> done better.
Haha, they
On Sun, 2006-02-12 at 18:52 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> This patch contains the following possible updates:
> - let FORCEDETH no longer depend on EXPERIMENTAL
> - remove the "Reverse Engineered" from the option text:
> for the user it's important which hardware the driver supports, not
> how it
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 23:56 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> yes, that would be a nice test. (I'm busy now with mutex stuff to be
> able to do a working softirq-preemption patch, but i sent you my
> current patches off-list - if you want to give it a shot. Be warned
> though, there will likely be qu
On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 18:01 -0800, John Ronciak wrote:
> There is a timer routine in the eepro100 driver which does the check
> for link as well as a check for on of the hang conditions (with
> work-around). It does the check for link in a different way than
> e100. e100 uses mii call where eepro
On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 17:19 -0800, John Ronciak wrote:
> On 1/20/06, Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Seems like the important question is, why does e100 need a watchdog if
> > eepro100 works fine without one? Isn't the point of a watchdog in this
> > cont
On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 11:19 +0100, kus Kusche Klaus wrote:
> For a non-full preemption kernel, your patch moves the 500 us
> piece of code from kernel to thread context, so it really
> improves things. But is 500 us something to worry about in a
> non-full preemption kernel?
Yes, absolutely. O
On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 12:55 +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > Analysis of e100:
> > * If I comment out the whole body of e100_watchdog except for the
> > timer re-registration, the delays are gone (so it is really the
> > body of e100_watchdog). However, this makes eth0 non-functional.
> > * C
On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 15:04 -0500, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> Printing the total number of sockets used in /proc/net/sockstat is out
> of place in a file that is supposed to contain information related to
> ipv4 sockets. Removed output for total socket usage.
>
Um, you can't do that, it will break
On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 11:17 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> I have some servers that once in a while crashes when the ip route
> cache is flushed. After
> raising /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/secret_interval (so that *no*
> flush is done), I got better uptime for these servers.
Argh, where is that docu
On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 13:58 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Another CPU might be stuck in a long
> running interrupt
Shouldn't a long running interrupt be considered a bug?
Lee
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majo
On Fri, 2005-12-30 at 20:15 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-12-30 at 17:02 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
> > >
> > > It seems that the networking code's use of RCU can cause 10ms+
> > > late
15 matches
Mail list logo
