On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 16:53 +0200, Fabian Deutsch wrote:
> Starting with F11 kmemleak is part of the kernel. It is quite annoying
> when every couple of minutes kmemleak starts to scan for memeleak within
> the kernel. I do not see any point in doing this on desktop machines, so
> is there a chance of disabling it by default?
> It eats quite much of battery when running F11 on a laptop.
Having kmemleak turned on at least in rawhide is a good thing. As for a
released kernel, I'd agree that the kthread Catalin uses probably
affects battery life. Of course you could disable it, but I suppose you
mentioned this because of the default - hence, copying fedora-kernel so
that someone can actually answer your question.
> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:01:25 +0100
> Subject: Re: (no subject)
> From: snecklifter(a)gmail.com
> To: remotestar(a)live.com
> Hi Markus,
> 2009/8/12 Markus Kesaromous :
>> Dear List,
>> I searched the ath9k source directory
>> for any strings that would hint/suggest support for the Atheros 9220/9223
>> chipset. I saw no such strings.
> What strings were you looking for?
I stated:>> for any strings that would hint/suggest support for the Atheros 9220/9223 (meaning 9220 or 9223 ala grep '922[0-9]' * (within the ath9k directory).
>> So, I emailed Atheros.com sales dept. and asked if they intend to provide an open
>> source driver for the AR9000 series chipsets, esp. the AR9220/AR9223. They replied that they already DO support the AR92xx chipset in the ath9k driver.
>> Before I go out and purchase the mini-pci card, is it true that the ath9k driver
>> has ineed been tested to fully support AR9220/AR9223 chipsets??
> Your thought process intrigues me. If you have communication from the
> manufacturer advising it is supported then you have your answer (and a
> waterproof returns policy if they are wrong).
I have learned never to trust sales people. When it comes to dealing with online
merchants, what the sales contact at the manufacturer says will not be sufficient
reason for return for a full refund, of a device which turns out to be unsupported.
My question to you is - why do you have to resort to assuming such a pompous attitude via questions like "Your thought process intrigues me."
There is a fitting description for such attitude, but I will not spam this mailing list with such a vivid description.
> Some basic investigation
> on the web will tell you what you need to know:
> Generally I just plug shit in and it works.
> Christopher Brown
Get your vacation photos on your phone!
I searched the ath9k source directory
for any strings that would hint/suggest support for the Atheros 9220/9223
chipset. I saw no such strings.
So, I emailed Atheros.com sales dept. and asked if they intend to provide an open
source driver for the AR9000 series chipsets, esp. the AR9220/AR9223. They replied that they already DO support the AR92xx chipset in the ath9k driver.
Before I go out and purchase the mini-pci card, is it true that the ath9k driver
has ineed been tested to fully support AR9220/AR9223 chipsets??
Express your personality in color! Preview and select themes for Hotmail®.
There is something seriously wrong with this kernel release.
It compiles - but will not boot all the way. It hangs somewhere.
I even tried to boot into single user mode. I never get to the shell
prompt when booting in single user mode, nor to the
gnome login banner when letting it boot in multiuser mode.
After some 30-45 minutes I Ctrl-Alt_Del and the kernel
pops the message
Stopping all md devices
and the pc reboots.
I did not have this problem with these kernels
Are there others who have tried to build 184.108.40.206-217.2.3.fc11
from source rpm and configured the kernel in any way before
Did you see any errors when running make modules_install
as I did? Did the resulting kernel boot up all the way?
If you need more info, please let me know.
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
Just noticed that the F12 kernel have CONFIG_IMA turned off:
# CONFIG_IMA is not set
I'd like to see:
This should ONLY be enabled for 2.6.31 kernels as before my patches in
2.6.31 there were a couple of normal user trigger-able security issues
Without configuration on the boot line or configuration after boot of
the ima infrastructure there is no impact to building this piece of code
outside of the fact that it builds CONFIG_TCG_TPM and CONFIG_TCG_TIS in
and will not allow them to be built as modules.
This may cause some consternation on users of the latest lenovo
thinkpads who have to patch those modules to get them to work (TPM on
latest lenovo notebooks only supports ACPI not PNP for device
discovery), but seeing as how noone really uses the tpm anyway and
hopefully it'll be fixed upstream this week I don't see that as a large