From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754678AbXKPBJx (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:09:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752409AbXKPBJo (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:09:44 -0500 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:47350 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752027AbXKPBJn (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:09:43 -0500 Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:09:18 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Kevin Winchester Cc: apw@shadowen.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, morgan@kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc2-mm1 -- strange apparent network failures Message-Id: <20071115170918.ca62ba62.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <200711152101.33266.kjwinchester@gmail.com> References: <20071113175906.497a1a6a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <200711152028.29734.kjwinchester@gmail.com> <20071115164441.67a8e2df.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <200711152101.33266.kjwinchester@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.20; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:01:32 -0400 Kevin Winchester wrote: > On November 15, 2007 08:44:41 pm Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:28:29 -0400 > > > > Kevin Winchester wrote: > > > On November 15, 2007 06:02:09 am Andy Whitcroft wrote: > > > > I see this as well - the computer boots fine but no network. The only > > > clues in the dmesg are: > > > > > > [ 294.097876] warning: process `dhclient' gets w/ old libcap > > > [ 294.097893] warning: process `dhclient' sets w/ old libcap > > > > > > So I'll try backing up the patch series to before: > > > > > > add-64-bit-capability-support-to-the-kernel.patch > > > > That's the winner. The changelog indicates that the patch is meant to keep > compatibility with older userspace, so I guess it didn't quite keep as much > compatibility as it wanted. OK, thanks for working that out - I'll temporarily drop that patch until we get it sorted.