Hi, all I have a question about printk format. Can printk format use "%4.4s"? This format is used following source. ############# drivers/acpi/tables/tbinstal.c ACPI_ERROR((AE_INFO, "Table has invalid signature [%4.4s], must be SSDT, PSDT or OEMx", table_desc->pointer->signature)); ############## At least, my dmesg is buggy output like that.. ############## $ dmesg (snip) ACPI Warning (tbutils-0158): Incorr...

From: akpm@linux-foundation.org I've applied this patch to net-2.6, thanks! -

From: Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com> Applied to net-2.6.24, thanks Jesper. -

Hello, I'm a bit puzzled because vdso doesn't seem to be used on my fedora 7: I just compiled a trivial program which just call gettimeofday() and ld.so resolves this call with vsyscall's gettimeofday. Now I'm wondering when vdso is used, could anybody give me a clue ? Another question: is vdso going to replace vsyscall at all ? If so how are statically programs going to be handled ? Thanks, -- Francis -

Hi Jeff, I think commit 866b04fccbf125cd39f2bdbcfeaa611d39a061a8 was wrong, and introduced a regression. 1. First and foremost, there was nothing wrong with the existing code that needed to be "fixed" at all, i.e. there was no "problem" to be solved in the first place. As was said, glibc *correctly* returns EOVERFLOW when a userspace application built *without* _FILE_OFFSET_BITS == 64 (i.e. ino_t != __ino64_t) tries to stat(2) a file whose serial number does not fit in the "st...

That's a bad excuse! Such userspace programs are buggy, period. Let's fix *them*. And, seriously, are you *really* talking of "supporting" userspace programs whose even *sources* are no longer available ? The standard is clear and simple -- calls from userspace programs (that don't define LFS) to stat(2) on a file whose serial number is >2**32 must see EOVERFLOW. This is *not* a kernel problem that needs "fixing". Moreover, changing a kernel function such as iunique() (which was expressly *w...

You are so cleanly isolating and cutting away of a group of developers. I sincerely hope your fellow developers will not cut you off if you make a similar mistake. I know mine wont. What you are saying is, a Copyright violation done by someone else is Somebody Else's Problem (tm). There are a couple of issues with this point of view: First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process. There have been ...

The replies suggest that some (most?) people are not aware of the recent developments, and that it is a dual licensing issue. This has very little to do with dual licensing right now, there has been other developments, more "advice" from SLFC. The code in question is Reyk's open source HAL work. I want to emphasize. This work was NOT ever dual licensed. Furthermore, since it is compatible with the binary HAL from Atheros, the interface is fixed and the same both in Linux and *BSD. So, even ...

The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal... This was the first email that was forwarded to linux-kernel, and it made it really hard to see at first that there was also an accidental s/community/communities/ This seems to be a common thinko by some people: The Linux kernel developers and the FSF are two very distinct communities, and there are quite different views on some copyright issu...

Nobody is relicensing anything, ever. If the author licenses a work under the GPL only, then that is forever how that work is licensed. If an author licenses a work under the BSD, then that is forever how that work is licensed. Same for a dual license. This applies until the copyright expires or the author offers the code under some other license. Nobody ever relicenses anything, ever. If I give you a copy of a work covered by the GPL, the BSD, a dual-license, or whatever, you get a license ...

He is quite right. You cannot choose the license under which someone else's code is offered. It would "break the law" not in the sense that you would be breaking the law, in the sense that it's impossible because the law does not allow it. You can, however, remove the BSD license notice if you'd like. While the BSD license prohibits you from removing it, you may choose to obtain the right to remove it from the GPL. The GPL does not prohibit removing a BSD license and explicitly grants you the right t...

This is a misleading statement. When you distribute the code, you can choose from which license you obtain the right to distribute, but this has *NO* effect on the rights the recipient of the code gets. Everyone receiving dual-licensed code who wishes to modify or distribute that code may choose from which license they obtain that right. They need only comply with the terms of the license from which they obtain rights. But this has no effect on anybody else nor does it have any effect on what right...

It's actually the other way round: cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed -

I hope noone believes this bullshit you are spreading. When you incorporate BSD licenced code into a GPL'ed project it's impossible that the GPL could give you any permission to remove the linux-kernel is not "almost every other forum I know of". Considering how long you are already trolling [1] on linux-kernel cu Adrian [1] Have you ever contributed any patch to the Linux kernel? -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. Ther...

You did say otherwise. Your claim was that "You can obtain, *from the GPL*, the right to remove a BSD license notice." This claim is bullshit. You can get this right from the copyright holder, e.g. when he cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed -

Hannah, What is going on whenever someone changes a code is that they make a "derivative work". Whether or not you can even make a derivative work, and under what terms the derivitive work can be licensed, is strictly up to the license of the original. For example, the BSD license says: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met.... Note the "with or without modification". This is wha...

if it's legal it's legal. it's not a matter of the Linux community being satisfied eith it, it's a matter of the BSD people desiring it based on their selection of license (and the repeated statements that this feature of the BSD license being an advantage compared to the GPL makes it clear that this isn't an unknown side effect, it's an explicit desire). so the Linux community is following the desires of the BSD community by following their license but the BSD community is unhappy, why? y...

That advice wasn't regarding relicensing. Dual-licensed code allows distribution and use under either license. If I get BSD/GPL code, I can follow the GPL exclusively and I don't have to follow the BSD license at all. And the alternative is also true. (ie: follow the BSD license exclusively and ignore the GPL) It's not "relicensing" - it's following *WHICH* of the offered terms are more agreeable. I'll just snip the rest, since you seem confused. <snip> DRH -- Dialup is li...

Warning: I have not run any benchmarks. One thing I am (more or less) able to measure is my own ability to headshot in some games like UT99. The other thing is to see if flash videos stutter or die under load. Please remember, this is about desktop usage - not numbers. my computer: PIII-S 1400 (512KB L2) TUSL2-C (i815ep) 512MB PC133 FireGL 8800 (~Radeon 8500 128MB) with dri drivers Hello Ingo, LKML, Here are the results of a few informal tests (flash videos, playing UT99, and looping k...

Linus, please pull the clockevents regression fixes from my hrt tree. Thanks, tglx The following changes since commit d0174640eedc1cd756754f03afe2dbb3d56de74e: Linus Torvalds (1): Merge branch 'upstream-linus' of master.kernel.org:/.../jgarzik/netdev-2.6 are available in the git repository at: ssh://master.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/linux-2.6-hrt.git for-2.6.23 Thomas Gleixner (5): timekeeping: access rtc outside of xtime lock timekeeping: Preven...

Hi, There is possible dead loop in finish_unfinished function. In most situation, the call chain iput -> ... -> reiserfs_delete_inode -> remove_save_link will success. But for some reason such as data corruption, reiserfs_delete_inode fails on reiserfs_do_truncate -> search_for_position_by_key. Then remove_save_link doesn't be called. We always get the same "save_link_key" in the while loop in finish_unfinished function. The following patch adds a check for the possib...

A summary of what is planned to be submitted in next merge window for kbuild. The shortlog below have additional details but the headlines are: o Make the kernel buildable on a cygwin box (but not without a few glitches) o detect unterminated device id list o add export_report as a valid top-level make target o add script to find unused kconfig symbols (try it!) o allow a user to specify additional flags on the commandline with CFLAGS, AFLAGS or CPPFLAGS. The flags will be appended to the kernel ...

box:/usr/src/linux-2.6.23-rc6> grep -r '^[ ]*#[ ]*define[ ]*CONFIG_' . | wc -l 415 bah. They're all bugs - The CONFIG_foo namespace is (should be) reserved in kernel coding. -

This is useful for specific people but not for kernel janitorial fodder. As you already experience the amount of false positive are too high. But for a developer of a module it is no deal to ignore the false positives. It is for godd reasons not integrated in the build process. Sam -

I fixed up the line breake in the patch and applied it. Please add a signed-off-by next time. Thanks, Sam -