Subject VMware, x86_64 and 2.6.21. From Nigel Cunningham <> Date Tue, 01 May 2007 15:42:27 +1000 Hi. Does anyone have VMware working on x86_64 with 2.6.21? It's working fine for me with 2.6.20, but freezes the whole computer with 2.6.21. Before I start a git-bisect, I thought I might ask if anyone knew of some compilation option I might have missed. Regards, Nigel
Subject Re: VMware, x86_64 and 2.6.21. From Nigel Cunningham <> Date Wed, 02 May 2007 01:14:16 +1000 Hi Arjan. On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 07:57 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 15:42 +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > Hi. > > > > Does anyone have VMware working on x86_64 with 2.6.21? It's working fine > > for me with 2.6.20, but freezes the whole computer with 2.6.21. Before I > > start a git-bisect, I thought I might ask if anyone knew of some > > compilation option I might have missed. > > > if you want to ask questions about proprietary kernel stuff you're > better off asking the vendor directly, not lkml I did, but given that it the failure only appeared with a change of vanilla kernel version, I didn't think it was out of place to ask here too. Regards, Nigel
Date Sat, 5 May 2007 10:56:09 +0100 From Christoph Hellwig <> Subject Re: VMware, x86_64 and 2.6.21. On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 01:14:16AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > if you want to ask questions about proprietary kernel stuff you're > > better off asking the vendor directly, not lkml > > I did, but given that it the failure only appeared with a change of > vanilla kernel version, I didn't think it was out of place to ask here > too. No, it's still totally offtopic here.
Subject Re: VMware, x86_64 and 2.6.21. From Valdis.Kletnieks@vt ... Date Sun, 06 May 2007 03:16:13 -0400 On Sat, 05 May 2007 10:56:09 BST, Christoph Hellwig said: > On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 01:14:16AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > if you want to ask questions about proprietary kernel stuff you're > > > better off asking the vendor directly, not lkml > > > > I did, but given that it the failure only appeared with a change of > > vanilla kernel version, I didn't think it was out of place to ask here > > too. > > No, it's still totally offtopic here. I'm not convinced it's *totally* off-topic. I'll agree that third-party binaries are on their own as far as active support goes, but I don't see that it's off-topic to post a simple statement-of-fact like "2.6.mumble-rc1 breaks <popular-driver-FOO>" just so it's a *known* issue and people who search the list archives don't spend forever re-inventing the wheel. Also, it's quite *possible* that the binary module has tripped over a geniune regression or bug in the kernel. [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
Date Sun, 6 May 2007 12:08:21 +0100 From Christoph Hellwig <> Subject Re: VMware, x86_64 and 2.6.21. On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 03:16:13AM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > I'm not convinced it's *totally* off-topic. I'll agree that third-party > binaries are on their own as far as active support goes, but I don't see > that it's off-topic to post a simple statement-of-fact like "2.6.mumble-rc1 > breaks <popular-driver-FOO>" just so it's a *known* issue and people who > search the list archives don't spend forever re-inventing the wheel. Also, > it's quite *possible* that the binary module has tripped over a geniune > regression or bug in the kernel. Actually it's totally offtopic. Not only are prorpitary module not on the agenda at all here, but ones that poke into deep down kernel internals should be expected to break every time. Note to mention that they are on the almost black side of the illegality scala for propritary modules.
Copyright 2007 http://lkml.org/