Hi,
Here goes -pre5.
It fixes a deadlock introduced by the IO fairness changes, fixes ACPI on
IBM's x440, has an uptodated cciss driver, a new ethernet driver for IBM
PPC's 4xx, amongst other fixes.
Please help testing.
Summary of changes from v2.4.22-pre4 to v2.4.22-pre5
============================================
<jcchen:icplus.com.tw>:
o [netdrvr sundance] increase eeprom read timeout
<mike.miller:hp.com>:
o cciss: change names and correct subsystem device ID for U320
o cciss: PCI BAR fix
o cciss: Fix potential overrun
o cciss: update version
o cciss: First part of PCI changes/driver cleanup
o cciss: Second part of PCI changes/driver cleanup
Andi Kleen:
o Fix compiling on x86-64
Benjamin Herrenschmidt:
o radeonfb 0.1.8 + my stuffs
Chris Mason:
o Fix deadlocks in IO scheduler changes
David Woodhouse:
o Backport vsprintf/scanf fixes from 2.5.74
Geert Uytterhoeven:
o Fix adbhid m68k screwup
J. A. Magallon:
o hfsplus: group Apple FS's and help text
John Stultz:
o Fix boot crash of x440's in full acpi mode
o Cleanup x440 acpi fix
Marcelo Tosatti:
o Changed EXTRAVERSION to -pre5
Petr Vandrovec:
o Fix matroxfb on PPC64
Tom Rini:
o An ethernet driver for the IBM PPC 4xx series of machines
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>
> Is there still any chance for the NFS O_DIRECT support to make it?
Yes.
I guess the best way of doing so would be adding ->direct_io2 and
KERNEL24_HAS_ODIRECT_2 define.
Correct?
>>>>> " " == Marcelo Tosatti <[email protected]> writes:
>> Is there still any chance for the NFS O_DIRECT support to make
>> it?
> I guess the best way of doing so would be adding ->direct_io2
> and KERNEL24_HAS_ODIRECT_2 define.
That is what the last patch I sent you does (also sent to l-k). Should
I resend?
Cheers,
Trond
Trond Myklebust wrote:
>>>>>>" " == Marcelo Tosatti <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
> >> Is there still any chance for the NFS O_DIRECT support to make
> >> it?
>
> > I guess the best way of doing so would be adding ->direct_io2
> > and KERNEL24_HAS_ODIRECT_2 define.
IMO, yes.
> That is what the last patch I sent you does (also sent to l-k). Should
> I resend?
Sounds like it :)
Christoph, opinion?
Jeff
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> >>>>> " " == Marcelo Tosatti <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> Is there still any chance for the NFS O_DIRECT support to make
> >> it?
>
> > I guess the best way of doing so would be adding ->direct_io2
> > and KERNEL24_HAS_ODIRECT_2 define.
>
> That is what the last patch I sent you does (also sent to l-k). Should
No, no need to resend. I have it.
I released -pre5 so quickly because of the IO hang fix, which is pretty
important. (Christoph: your vmap patch will go on -pre6 too once I read
it).
Well, Jeff, Christoph, do you have any comments on Trond's new
O_DIRECT patch?
I haven't looked at it closely, yet.
Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> Well, Jeff, Christoph, do you have any comments on Trond's new
> O_DIRECT patch?
I looked at it, and it looked ok to me. Basically I was wondering was
Christoph thought at this point...
Jeff
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> Here goes -pre5.
[...]
>
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt:
> o radeonfb 0.1.8 + my stuffs
radeonfb.c:168:28: linux/radeonfb.h: No such file or directory
--
Rick Nelson
I still maintain the point that designing a monolithic kernel in 1991 is a
fundamental error. Be thankful you are not my student. You would not get a
high grade for such a design :-)
(Andrew Tanenbaum to Linus Torvalds)
Ben?
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Richard A Nelson wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> > Here goes -pre5.
> [...]
> >
> > Benjamin Herrenschmidt:
> > o radeonfb 0.1.8 + my stuffs
>
> radeonfb.c:168:28: linux/radeonfb.h: No such file or directory
>
> --
> Rick Nelson
> I still maintain the point that designing a monolithic kernel in 1991 is a
> fundamental error. Be thankful you are not my student. You would not get a
> high grade for such a design :-)
> (Andrew Tanenbaum to Linus Torvalds)
>
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 06:56:16PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> Well, Jeff, Christoph, do you have any comments on Trond's new
> O_DIRECT patch?
Patch looks fine. I don't really like the directfileio name, but
hey, this cludge is so ugly that it doesn't really matter anymore..
>>>>> " " == Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> writes:
> Patch looks fine. I don't really like the directfileio name,
Feel free to suggest a better one. I chose it 'cos I hate the idea of
version numbers on function names (i.e. direct_iO2).
> but hey, this cludge is so ugly that it doesn't really matter
> anymore..
Agreed...
cheers,
Trond
On Sat, 2003-07-12 at 00:38, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> Ben?
bk fuckage on my side, here it is
#ifndef __LINUX_RADEONFB_H__
#define __LINUX_RADEONFB_H__
#include <asm/ioctl.h>
#include <asm/types.h>
#define ATY_RADEON_LCD_ON 0x00000001
#define ATY_RADEON_CRT_ON 0x00000002
#define FBIO_RADEON_GET_MIRROR _IOR('@', 3, __u32)
#define FBIO_RADEON_SET_MIRROR _IOW('@', 4, __u32)
#endif