* [Adeos-main] port 2.6.19 x86_64 to 2.6.20
@ 2007-02-25 23:50 trem
2007-02-26 5:56 ` Philippe Gerum
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: trem @ 2007-02-25 23:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: adeos-main
Hi
I've tried to port the 2.6.19 x86_64 adeos patch to 2.6.20. you can find
it here :
http://zarb.org/~trem/adeos-ipipe-2.6.20-x86_64-1.7-03-trem.patch
I can apply it with with prepare_kernel.sh (from xenomai svn), but I haven't
tested it yet (I mean run kernel).
I hope this patch is good enough to be used. Otherwise, I'd be pleased
to fix it (maybe with a bit of help).
regards,
trem
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Adeos-main] port 2.6.19 x86_64 to 2.6.20
2007-02-25 23:50 [Adeos-main] port 2.6.19 x86_64 to 2.6.20 trem
@ 2007-02-26 5:56 ` Philippe Gerum
2007-03-03 22:24 ` trem
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Philippe Gerum @ 2007-02-26 5:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: trem; +Cc: adeos-main
On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 00:50 +0100, trem wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've tried to port the 2.6.19 x86_64 adeos patch to 2.6.20. you can find
> it here :
> http://zarb.org/~trem/adeos-ipipe-2.6.20-x86_64-1.7-03-trem.patch
The good news is that moving to 2.6.20 does not seem to be too much of a
hell. Right?
>
> I can apply it with with prepare_kernel.sh (from xenomai svn), but I haven't
> tested it yet (I mean run kernel).
>
> I hope this patch is good enough to be used. Otherwise, I'd be pleased
> to fix it (maybe with a bit of help).
>
We are hopefully close to have a reasonably good patch for 2.6.19. Once
we achieve this, porting to 2.6.20 should be the next step. Thanks.
--
Philippe.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Adeos-main] port 2.6.19 x86_64 to 2.6.20
2007-02-26 5:56 ` Philippe Gerum
@ 2007-03-03 22:24 ` trem
2007-03-03 22:58 ` Philippe Gerum
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: trem @ 2007-03-03 22:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rpm; +Cc: adeos-main
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 00:50 +0100, trem wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I've tried to port the 2.6.19 x86_64 adeos patch to 2.6.20. you can find
>> it here :
>> http://zarb.org/~trem/adeos-ipipe-2.6.20-x86_64-1.7-03-trem.patch
>>
>
> The good news is that moving to 2.6.20 does not seem to be too much of a
> hell. Right?
>
>
Yes, there are few conflict so it's quite easy to port xenomai to 2.6.20.
>> I can apply it with with prepare_kernel.sh (from xenomai svn), but I haven't
>> tested it yet (I mean run kernel).
>>
>> I hope this patch is good enough to be used. Otherwise, I'd be pleased
>> to fix it (maybe with a bit of help).
>>
>>
>
> We are hopefully close to have a reasonably good patch for 2.6.19. Once
> we achieve this, porting to 2.6.20 should be the next step. Thanks.
>
>
I've seen ths in the Changelog : "this closes the implementation phase
of the x86_64 port."
So I suppose that the patch for 2.6.19 is finished. I've tried it and it
works fine.
The result of latency is :
[trem@domain.hid bin]$ sudo ./latency -T 10
== Sampling period: 100 us
== Test mode: periodic user-mode task
== All results in microseconds
warming up...
RTT| 00:00:01 (periodic user-mode task, 100 us period, priority 99)
RTH|-----lat min|-----lat avg|-----lat max|-overrun|----lat best|---lat
worst
RTD| 0.760| 1.073| 3.660| 0| 0.760|
3.660
RTD| 0.737| 1.063| 3.012| 0| 0.737|
3.660
RTD| 0.741| 1.083| 3.396| 0| 0.737|
3.660
RTD| 0.755| 1.088| 2.344| 0| 0.737|
3.660
RTD| 0.754| 1.093| 3.431| 0| 0.737|
3.660
RTD| 0.755| 1.089| 5.119| 0| 0.737|
5.119
RTD| 0.724| 1.091| 3.126| 0| 0.724|
5.119
RTD| 0.762| 1.089| 3.171| 0| 0.724|
5.119
RTD| 0.751| 1.097| 5.508| 0| 0.724|
5.508
---|------------|------------|------------|--------|-------------------------
RTS| 0.724| 1.085| 5.508| 0| 00:00:10/00:00:10
If I don't mistake, I see a max latency of 5us. Is it realistic ?
Now, the port to 2.6.20 is open ? we can work on ?
trem
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Adeos-main] port 2.6.19 x86_64 to 2.6.20
2007-03-03 22:24 ` trem
@ 2007-03-03 22:58 ` Philippe Gerum
2007-03-04 17:32 ` trem
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Philippe Gerum @ 2007-03-03 22:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: trem; +Cc: adeos-main
On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 23:24 +0100, trem wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 00:50 +0100, trem wrote:
> >
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> I've tried to port the 2.6.19 x86_64 adeos patch to 2.6.20. you can find
> >> it here :
> >> http://zarb.org/~trem/adeos-ipipe-2.6.20-x86_64-1.7-03-trem.patch
> >>
> >
> > The good news is that moving to 2.6.20 does not seem to be too much of a
> > hell. Right?
> >
> >
> Yes, there are few conflict so it's quite easy to port xenomai to 2.6.20.
> >> I can apply it with with prepare_kernel.sh (from xenomai svn), but I haven't
> >> tested it yet (I mean run kernel).
> >>
> >> I hope this patch is good enough to be used. Otherwise, I'd be pleased
> >> to fix it (maybe with a bit of help).
> >>
> >>
> >
> > We are hopefully close to have a reasonably good patch for 2.6.19. Once
> > we achieve this, porting to 2.6.20 should be the next step. Thanks.
> >
> >
> I've seen ths in the Changelog : "this closes the implementation phase
> of the x86_64 port."
> So I suppose that the patch for 2.6.19 is finished. I've tried it and it
> works fine.
> The result of latency is :
>
> [trem@domain.hid bin]$ sudo ./latency -T 10
> == Sampling period: 100 us
> == Test mode: periodic user-mode task
> == All results in microseconds
> warming up...
> RTT| 00:00:01 (periodic user-mode task, 100 us period, priority 99)
> RTH|-----lat min|-----lat avg|-----lat max|-overrun|----lat best|---lat
> worst
> RTD| 0.760| 1.073| 3.660| 0| 0.760|
> 3.660
> RTD| 0.737| 1.063| 3.012| 0| 0.737|
> 3.660
> RTD| 0.741| 1.083| 3.396| 0| 0.737|
> 3.660
> RTD| 0.755| 1.088| 2.344| 0| 0.737|
> 3.660
> RTD| 0.754| 1.093| 3.431| 0| 0.737|
> 3.660
> RTD| 0.755| 1.089| 5.119| 0| 0.737|
> 5.119
> RTD| 0.724| 1.091| 3.126| 0| 0.724|
> 5.119
> RTD| 0.762| 1.089| 3.171| 0| 0.724|
> 5.119
> RTD| 0.751| 1.097| 5.508| 0| 0.724|
> 5.508
> ---|------------|------------|------------|--------|-------------------------
> RTS| 0.724| 1.085| 5.508| 0| 00:00:10/00:00:10
>
> If I don't mistake, I see a max latency of 5us. Is it realistic ?
>
Yes. X-related problems Paul told us about being put aside (likely MTRR
issues, still to be chased), I see < 10 us under SMP test load on a 2 x
dual core Opteron 285 here (test load meaning two parallel kernel
compilations (-j5), and some significant network load).
We still have to benchmark this port more exhaustively and aggressively
(e.g. different I/O loads and severe cache trashing, for longer than 8
hours), but the foundations look sane, especially since the
Xenomai/x86_64 port currently runs with a default latency calibration
set to 500 ns over this.
> Now, the port to 2.6.20 is open ? we can work on ?
>
Yep. Have fun.
>
> trem
>
>
>
--
Philippe.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Adeos-main] port 2.6.19 x86_64 to 2.6.20
2007-03-03 22:58 ` Philippe Gerum
@ 2007-03-04 17:32 ` trem
2007-03-07 23:31 ` Philippe Gerum
2007-03-25 17:19 ` Philippe Gerum
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: trem @ 2007-03-04 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rpm; +Cc: adeos-main
Hi
As I've got your start now, I've ported (at least tried) the 2.6.19
x86_64 adeos patch to 2.6.20.
I've tried it and it seems to works fine, here the latency :
[trem@domain.hid ~]$ cat latency_xenomai_2_6_20.txt
[trem@domain.hid bin]$ sudo ./latency -T 10
== Sampling period: 100 us
== Test mode: periodic user-mode task
== All results in microseconds
warming up...
RTT| 00:00:01 (periodic user-mode task, 100 us period, priority 99)
RTH|-----lat min|-----lat avg|-----lat max|-overrun|----lat best|---lat
worst
RTD| 0.737| 1.067| 3.332| 0| 0.737|
3.332
RTD| 0.744| 1.067| 3.568| 0| 0.737|
3.568
RTD| 0.724| 1.080| 3.362| 0| 0.724|
3.568
RTD| 0.730| 1.070| 2.900| 0| 0.724|
3.568
RTD| 0.711| 1.071| 3.441| 0| 0.711|
3.568
RTD| 0.733| 1.066| 3.547| 0| 0.711|
3.568
RTD| 0.735| 1.079| 4.523| 0| 0.711|
4.523
RTD| 0.716| 1.072| 3.307| 0| 0.711|
4.523
RTD| 0.715| 1.066| 3.507| 0| 0.711|
4.523
---|------------|------------|------------|--------|-------------------------
RTS| 0.711| 1.071| 4.523| 0| 00:00:10/00:00:10
The patch (2.6.20 x86_64) can be found here :
http://zarb.org/~trem/adeos-ipipe-2.6.20-x86_64-1.7-07-trem.patch
I hope it could be used.
regards,
trem
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 23:24 +0100, trem wrote:
>
>> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 00:50 +0100, trem wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> I've tried to port the 2.6.19 x86_64 adeos patch to 2.6.20. you can find
>>>> it here :
>>>> http://zarb.org/~trem/adeos-ipipe-2.6.20-x86_64-1.7-03-trem.patch
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The good news is that moving to 2.6.20 does not seem to be too much of a
>>> hell. Right?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, there are few conflict so it's quite easy to port xenomai to 2.6.20.
>>
>>>> I can apply it with with prepare_kernel.sh (from xenomai svn), but I haven't
>>>> tested it yet (I mean run kernel).
>>>>
>>>> I hope this patch is good enough to be used. Otherwise, I'd be pleased
>>>> to fix it (maybe with a bit of help).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> We are hopefully close to have a reasonably good patch for 2.6.19. Once
>>> we achieve this, porting to 2.6.20 should be the next step. Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I've seen ths in the Changelog : "this closes the implementation phase
>> of the x86_64 port."
>> So I suppose that the patch for 2.6.19 is finished. I've tried it and it
>> works fine.
>> The result of latency is :
>>
>> [trem@domain.hid bin]$ sudo ./latency -T 10
>> == Sampling period: 100 us
>> == Test mode: periodic user-mode task
>> == All results in microseconds
>> warming up...
>> RTT| 00:00:01 (periodic user-mode task, 100 us period, priority 99)
>> RTH|-----lat min|-----lat avg|-----lat max|-overrun|----lat best|---lat
>> worst
>> RTD| 0.760| 1.073| 3.660| 0| 0.760|
>> 3.660
>> RTD| 0.737| 1.063| 3.012| 0| 0.737|
>> 3.660
>> RTD| 0.741| 1.083| 3.396| 0| 0.737|
>> 3.660
>> RTD| 0.755| 1.088| 2.344| 0| 0.737|
>> 3.660
>> RTD| 0.754| 1.093| 3.431| 0| 0.737|
>> 3.660
>> RTD| 0.755| 1.089| 5.119| 0| 0.737|
>> 5.119
>> RTD| 0.724| 1.091| 3.126| 0| 0.724|
>> 5.119
>> RTD| 0.762| 1.089| 3.171| 0| 0.724|
>> 5.119
>> RTD| 0.751| 1.097| 5.508| 0| 0.724|
>> 5.508
>> ---|------------|------------|------------|--------|-------------------------
>> RTS| 0.724| 1.085| 5.508| 0| 00:00:10/00:00:10
>>
>> If I don't mistake, I see a max latency of 5us. Is it realistic ?
>>
>>
>
> Yes. X-related problems Paul told us about being put aside (likely MTRR
> issues, still to be chased), I see < 10 us under SMP test load on a 2 x
> dual core Opteron 285 here (test load meaning two parallel kernel
> compilations (-j5), and some significant network load).
>
> We still have to benchmark this port more exhaustively and aggressively
> (e.g. different I/O loads and severe cache trashing, for longer than 8
> hours), but the foundations look sane, especially since the
> Xenomai/x86_64 port currently runs with a default latency calibration
> set to 500 ns over this.
>
>
>> Now, the port to 2.6.20 is open ? we can work on ?
>>
>>
>
> Yep. Have fun.
>
>
>> trem
>>
>>
>>
>>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Adeos-main] port 2.6.19 x86_64 to 2.6.20
2007-03-04 17:32 ` trem
@ 2007-03-07 23:31 ` Philippe Gerum
2007-03-25 17:19 ` Philippe Gerum
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Philippe Gerum @ 2007-03-07 23:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: trem; +Cc: adeos-main
On Sun, 2007-03-04 at 18:32 +0100, trem wrote:
> Hi
>
> As I've got your start now, I've ported (at least tried) the 2.6.19
> x86_64 adeos patch to 2.6.20.
> I've tried it and it seems to works fine, here the latency :
>
> [trem@domain.hid ~]$ cat latency_xenomai_2_6_20.txt
> [trem@domain.hid bin]$ sudo ./latency -T 10
> == Sampling period: 100 us
> == Test mode: periodic user-mode task
> == All results in microseconds
> warming up...
> RTT| 00:00:01 (periodic user-mode task, 100 us period, priority 99)
> RTH|-----lat min|-----lat avg|-----lat max|-overrun|----lat best|---lat
> worst
> RTD| 0.737| 1.067| 3.332| 0| 0.737|
> 3.332
> RTD| 0.744| 1.067| 3.568| 0| 0.737|
> 3.568
> RTD| 0.724| 1.080| 3.362| 0| 0.724|
> 3.568
> RTD| 0.730| 1.070| 2.900| 0| 0.724|
> 3.568
> RTD| 0.711| 1.071| 3.441| 0| 0.711|
> 3.568
> RTD| 0.733| 1.066| 3.547| 0| 0.711|
> 3.568
> RTD| 0.735| 1.079| 4.523| 0| 0.711|
> 4.523
> RTD| 0.716| 1.072| 3.307| 0| 0.711|
> 4.523
> RTD| 0.715| 1.066| 3.507| 0| 0.711|
> 4.523
> ---|------------|------------|------------|--------|-------------------------
> RTS| 0.711| 1.071| 4.523| 0| 00:00:10/00:00:10
>
>
> The patch (2.6.20 x86_64) can be found here :
> http://zarb.org/~trem/adeos-ipipe-2.6.20-x86_64-1.7-07-trem.patch
>
s,1.7-07,1.0-07,
> I hope it could be used.
>
Nice. Will use this work as the upcoming 2.6.20/x86_64 baseline in my
git repo. Thanks.
--
Philippe.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Adeos-main] port 2.6.19 x86_64 to 2.6.20
2007-03-04 17:32 ` trem
2007-03-07 23:31 ` Philippe Gerum
@ 2007-03-25 17:19 ` Philippe Gerum
2007-03-30 10:16 ` Paul
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Philippe Gerum @ 2007-03-25 17:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: trem; +Cc: adeos-main
On Sun, 2007-03-04 at 18:32 +0100, trem wrote:
> Hi
>
> As I've got your start now, I've ported (at least tried) the 2.6.19
> x86_64 adeos patch to 2.6.20.
> I've tried it and it seems to works fine, here the latency :
>
> [trem@domain.hid ~]$ cat latency_xenomai_2_6_20.txt
> [trem@domain.hid bin]$ sudo ./latency -T 10
> == Sampling period: 100 us
> == Test mode: periodic user-mode task
> == All results in microseconds
> warming up...
> RTT| 00:00:01 (periodic user-mode task, 100 us period, priority 99)
> RTH|-----lat min|-----lat avg|-----lat max|-overrun|----lat best|---lat
> worst
> RTD| 0.737| 1.067| 3.332| 0| 0.737|
> 3.332
> RTD| 0.744| 1.067| 3.568| 0| 0.737|
> 3.568
> RTD| 0.724| 1.080| 3.362| 0| 0.724|
> 3.568
> RTD| 0.730| 1.070| 2.900| 0| 0.724|
> 3.568
> RTD| 0.711| 1.071| 3.441| 0| 0.711|
> 3.568
> RTD| 0.733| 1.066| 3.547| 0| 0.711|
> 3.568
> RTD| 0.735| 1.079| 4.523| 0| 0.711|
> 4.523
> RTD| 0.716| 1.072| 3.307| 0| 0.711|
> 4.523
> RTD| 0.715| 1.066| 3.507| 0| 0.711|
> 4.523
> ---|------------|------------|------------|--------|-------------------------
> RTS| 0.711| 1.071| 4.523| 0| 00:00:10/00:00:10
>
>
> The patch (2.6.20 x86_64) can be found here :
> http://zarb.org/~trem/adeos-ipipe-2.6.20-x86_64-1.7-07-trem.patch
>
> I hope it could be used.
>
Merged, thanks. This upgrade is now available from the Adeos GIT repo
and Xenomai's SVN trunk.
> regards,
> trem
>
>
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 23:24 +0100, trem wrote:
> >
> >> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 00:50 +0100, trem wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Hi
> >>>>
> >>>> I've tried to port the 2.6.19 x86_64 adeos patch to 2.6.20. you can find
> >>>> it here :
> >>>> http://zarb.org/~trem/adeos-ipipe-2.6.20-x86_64-1.7-03-trem.patch
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> The good news is that moving to 2.6.20 does not seem to be too much of a
> >>> hell. Right?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Yes, there are few conflict so it's quite easy to port xenomai to 2.6.20.
> >>
> >>>> I can apply it with with prepare_kernel.sh (from xenomai svn), but I haven't
> >>>> tested it yet (I mean run kernel).
> >>>>
> >>>> I hope this patch is good enough to be used. Otherwise, I'd be pleased
> >>>> to fix it (maybe with a bit of help).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> We are hopefully close to have a reasonably good patch for 2.6.19. Once
> >>> we achieve this, porting to 2.6.20 should be the next step. Thanks.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I've seen ths in the Changelog : "this closes the implementation phase
> >> of the x86_64 port."
> >> So I suppose that the patch for 2.6.19 is finished. I've tried it and it
> >> works fine.
> >> The result of latency is :
> >>
> >> [trem@domain.hid bin]$ sudo ./latency -T 10
> >> == Sampling period: 100 us
> >> == Test mode: periodic user-mode task
> >> == All results in microseconds
> >> warming up...
> >> RTT| 00:00:01 (periodic user-mode task, 100 us period, priority 99)
> >> RTH|-----lat min|-----lat avg|-----lat max|-overrun|----lat best|---lat
> >> worst
> >> RTD| 0.760| 1.073| 3.660| 0| 0.760|
> >> 3.660
> >> RTD| 0.737| 1.063| 3.012| 0| 0.737|
> >> 3.660
> >> RTD| 0.741| 1.083| 3.396| 0| 0.737|
> >> 3.660
> >> RTD| 0.755| 1.088| 2.344| 0| 0.737|
> >> 3.660
> >> RTD| 0.754| 1.093| 3.431| 0| 0.737|
> >> 3.660
> >> RTD| 0.755| 1.089| 5.119| 0| 0.737|
> >> 5.119
> >> RTD| 0.724| 1.091| 3.126| 0| 0.724|
> >> 5.119
> >> RTD| 0.762| 1.089| 3.171| 0| 0.724|
> >> 5.119
> >> RTD| 0.751| 1.097| 5.508| 0| 0.724|
> >> 5.508
> >> ---|------------|------------|------------|--------|-------------------------
> >> RTS| 0.724| 1.085| 5.508| 0| 00:00:10/00:00:10
> >>
> >> If I don't mistake, I see a max latency of 5us. Is it realistic ?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Yes. X-related problems Paul told us about being put aside (likely MTRR
> > issues, still to be chased), I see < 10 us under SMP test load on a 2 x
> > dual core Opteron 285 here (test load meaning two parallel kernel
> > compilations (-j5), and some significant network load).
> >
> > We still have to benchmark this port more exhaustively and aggressively
> > (e.g. different I/O loads and severe cache trashing, for longer than 8
> > hours), but the foundations look sane, especially since the
> > Xenomai/x86_64 port currently runs with a default latency calibration
> > set to 500 ns over this.
> >
> >
> >> Now, the port to 2.6.20 is open ? we can work on ?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Yep. Have fun.
> >
> >
> >> trem
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
--
Philippe.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Adeos-main] port 2.6.19 x86_64 to 2.6.20
2007-03-25 17:19 ` Philippe Gerum
@ 2007-03-30 10:16 ` Paul
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Paul @ 2007-03-30 10:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: adeos-main, rpm
On Sunday 25 March 2007 18:19, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > The patch (2.6.20 x86_64) can be found here :
> > http://zarb.org/~trem/adeos-ipipe-2.6.20-x86_64-1.7-07-trem.patch
> >
> > I hope it could be used.
>
> Merged, thanks. This upgrade is now available from the Adeos GIT repo
> and Xenomai's SVN trunk.
Attempting to compile against 2.6.20.4, hit a couple of minor snags.. Two
includes in kernel/ipipe/tracer.c. linux/ipipe.h for __ipipe_pipeline and
linux/sched.h for tasklist_lock - Also needed to insert an extern for cpu_khz
in asm-x86_64/ipipe.h (no diffs available I'm afraid)..
It looks like the kernel developers are starting to clean up the rats nest of
includes, so I suspect there are going to be more "undefined variable" errors
cropping up in the future.
The 2.6.20.4 packages are available on http://zathras.tuxcnc.org/xenomai if
anyone would like to test - Latest builds use r2340 trunk from SVN.
Regards, Paul.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-03-30 10:16 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-02-25 23:50 [Adeos-main] port 2.6.19 x86_64 to 2.6.20 trem
2007-02-26 5:56 ` Philippe Gerum
2007-03-03 22:24 ` trem
2007-03-03 22:58 ` Philippe Gerum
2007-03-04 17:32 ` trem
2007-03-07 23:31 ` Philippe Gerum
2007-03-25 17:19 ` Philippe Gerum
2007-03-30 10:16 ` Paul
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.