From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QlimE-0004oR-1D for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:38:30 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D8D4C21C0F1; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:38:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ns1.bonedaddy.net (ns1.bonedaddy.net [70.91.141.202]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C5AE21C04C for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:37:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ns1.bonedaddy.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ns1.bonedaddy.net (8.14.5/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6QE6HXD024241 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:06:17 -0400 Received: (from tgoodman@localhost) by ns1.bonedaddy.net (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id p6QE6HTb024240 for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:06:17 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: ns1.bonedaddy.net: tgoodman set sender to tsg@bonedaddy.net using -f Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:06:17 -0400 From: Todd Goodman To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] X Freezes With Firefox on Many Post 2.6.38 Kernels Message-ID: <20110726140617.GG28131@ns1.bonedaddy.net> References: <20110725182047.GM30008@ns1.bonedaddy.net> <4E2DBFCB.7040003@gmail.com> <20110725185322.GA28131@ns1.bonedaddy.net> <4E2ECBAC.7010103@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E2ECBAC.7010103@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 1f1e80c605b49f2279b5842048a984aa * Dale [110726 09:46]: > Todd Goodman wrote: > > > > I'll let you know if I see anything that looks related. It would be > > interesting if going back to 2.6.38 is a temp fix for you. I know you'd > > tried older kernels before but... > > Todd > > > > > > This makes me wonder. I have went all the way back to 2.6.35-r15 and it > does the same thing. Could it be that my problem is unrelated? It's certainly possible it's unrelated. Or it could be something similar and the other bug reporter made a mistake bisecting or didn't run long enough to fail with that bisection. It's possibly a lot of things since we don't have enough information. > > Also, I copied my current config over and ran make oldconfig. Since I > am actually downgrading, would that work the same way or would it have > settings that no longer apply and may muck things up? I don't think that would work OK (but don't know for sure.) In most cases it would probably work OK as I believe unused parameters will be ignored. But if a parameter was removed or the meaning changed then you might have a problem (unlikely I'd guess, but I don't know.) Todd > > Dale > > :-) :-)