[03:38] <sn9> is the lack of master mode in nearly all of hardy's mac80211-based drivers a limitation of those drivers individually, or of the version of mac80211 used in the hardy kernel?
[05:40] <wcr2007>  hi, everyone. Is the kernel option CONFIG_M686=y compatiable with AMD Phenom 8450? Thanks
[05:41] <sn9> phenom should use a x86_64
[05:41] <wcr2007> I failed to install 32bit ubuntu(8.04 desktop) on AMD phenom 8450 CPU. I have turned acpi and apic off. Can anyone has such expericnce tell me how to? Is there any kernel options to turn on or off? Or the kernel is not compatiable with AMD64?Thanks a lot.
[05:42] <wcr2007> I donot want to use 64 bit on my PC.
[05:42] <sn9> i put a 32bit distro on a phenom 8650
[05:42] <sn9> don't turn anything off
[05:42] <wcr2007> whera can I get it?
[05:43] <sn9> get what?
[05:44] <wcr2007> The distro you put
[05:46] <wcr2007> sn9: you just install it as a normal one?
[05:47] <sn9> yes
[10:08] <sn9> is the lack of master mode in nearly all of hardy's mac80211-based drivers a limitation of those drivers individually, or of the version of mac80211 used in the hardy kernel?
[16:18] <MementoMori> hi all
[16:20] <MementoMori> I'm having problem building a source using ipc_perm struct
[16:21] <MementoMori> in particular seems like ipc_perm struct hasnt a member named key
[16:22] <MementoMori> which is an error: ipc_perm at include/linux/ipc.h has the key member
[16:39] <MementoMori> icp_perm declared in /usr/include/bits/ipc.h is diffent from the one present in /usr/include/linux/ipc.h
[18:27] <sn9> is the lack of master mode in nearly all of hardy's mac80211-based drivers a limitation of those drivers individually, or of the version of mac80211 used in the hardy kernel?
[18:59] <sn9> anybody?
[19:00] <mkrufky> sn9: do you find different behavior in the vanilla 2.6.26 kernel?
[19:00] <mkrufky> oops
[19:00] <sn9> 2.6.26 has a different mac80211 ABI
[19:00] <mkrufky> i meant the vanilla 2.6.24 kernel
[19:01] <sn9> i have not compared the mac80211 in vanilla .24
[19:01] <mkrufky> if you compare it, there will be your answer
[19:01] <sn9> how so?
[19:01] <mkrufky> if they're the same, then you know its not hardy-specific
[19:02] <sn9> i was not asking about hardy vs. not hardy, but of the version used in hardy, regardless of where else it may be used
[19:02] <mkrufky> so, you're question is about the mac80211 in the 2.6.24 kernel .... not necessarily in relation to hardy
[19:03] <sn9> as it's used in hardy, yes, if hardy's mac80211 is vanilla, which i doubt
[20:42] <Kano> hi, current interpid git does not compile, ist has errros in osl.c, is that known?
[20:44] <zul> yes
[20:47] <Kano> well i am waiting ;)
[20:47] <Kano> i want to test a patch
[20:47] <Kano> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/24/286
[20:48] <Kano> because the kernel shuts down some laptops
[20:49] <sn9> any chance intrepid could still be re-slated for 2.6.27?
[20:49] <Kano> hmm there is a next branch
[20:51] <amitk> sn9: Intrepid probably won't get 2.6.27 unless Linus announces one next week :)
[20:51] <amitk> but as pointed out there is now a -next tree
[20:51] <sn9> amitk: .27 is already way past -rc1
[20:52] <amitk> sn9: it takes an average of 3-4 months to shake things out, that is well past our freeze date
[20:53] <sn9> i think the average will not mean much in this case
[20:53] <sn9> -rc2 may even happen this week
[20:54] <amitk> I am guessing .27 won't be out before Sept, but if it does come out I am sure we would be willing to review.
[20:54] <SSD> are they adding ext4 in intrepid?
[20:54] <sn9> i am not so sure .27 will take that long
[20:55] <SSD> for intrepid?
[20:55] <sn9> SSD: watch for BTRFS in intrepid+1
[20:55] <SSD> thats not even in the kernel
[22:47] <Nafallo> hmm
[22:47] <Nafallo> anything known in kernel world about hardy not being able to speak multicast?
[22:47] <Nafallo> over vlan interfaces I should add.
[22:48] <Nafallo> possibly subinterfaces in total. eth0.xxx in my case.
[23:24] <sn9> kylem: are you subscribed to debbugs #429734 ?