Hi, All.
This is just an update on my earlier e-mail.
On Jul 03 2005, Rogério Brito wrote:
> On Jul 02 2005, Stefan Richter wrote:
> > I have a question: Do you need _both_ the sbp2 back-out and ieee1394's
> > disable_irm parameter, or only one of them?
>
> But with the recently released 2.6.13-rc1-mm1, patching the sbp2.[ch]
> files isn't sufficient anymore (i.e., I get results similar to what I had
> when I first started this thread).
With 2.6.13-rc1-mm1, it works if I patch sbp2.[ch] *and* pass the
disable_irm parameter. If I don't pass the parameter, I get the same
strange behaviour as I did before.
I have not yet tested with a vanilla 2.6.13-rc1-mm1 (i.e., without patching
sbp2.[ch]) and with disable_irm=1. I can test this, if desired or any other
thing that you may want me to test.
Thanks, Rogério Brito.
--
Rogério Brito : [email protected] : http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito
Homepage of the algorithms package : http://algorithms.berlios.de
Homepage on freshmeat: http://freshmeat.net/projects/algorithms/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |