Re: Basic testing shows 2.3.99-pre9-3 bad, pre9-2 good

From: Linus Torvalds (torvalds@transmeta.com)
Date: Sun May 21 2000 - 14:17:25 EST


On Sun, 21 May 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:

> On Sun, 21 May 2000, Lawrence Manning wrote:
>
> > That's my observation anyway. I did some dd and bonnie tests
> > and got abismal results :-( Machine unusable during dd write
> > etc. pre9-2 on the other hand is close to being as smooth as,
> > say, 2.3.51. What happened? ;)

What happened was really that I did a partial integration just to make it
easier to synchronize. I wanted to basically have pre9-2 + quintela's
patch, but I had too many emails to go through and too many changes of my
own in this area, so I made pre9-3 available so that others could help me
synchronize.

So on't despair, pre9-3 is definitely just a temporary mix of patches, and
is lacking the balancing that Quintela did.

                Linus

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 23 2000 - 21:00:20 EST