On Mon, 22 May 2000, Andrzej Krzysztofowicz wrote:
> > > At least if they succeed to bring 2.2.16 performance back up to the level
> > > of 2.2.14 even in some 2.2.16preX, it would be good to have an ide patch
> > > for it...
> >
> > yes - but it will stay as a patch. There are too many setups it doesnt work
> > on
>
> Absolutely no chance for it ? Even after the known bugs would have been
> corrected ?
>
> Andre do you have a list of broken configurations ?
Lets not go there............AC is tried of me WRAGGING him to death.
The 2.2.15 code is about 10+ sets out of sync with 2.3.99pre9-3.
Untill the 2.3.99pre9-X or 2.4-pre-X is clean, I have very little time to
fight with 2.2.15 issues.
I already have one problem because a safety catch did not work.
Andries, were you ever able to recover the dat of the professor in FI?
Do you know the embarrassment when you get a report that is almost fatal
to Linux itself.........a completely missed timed disk IO transaction may
never be recovered........and worse create a ripple in the inode table
locations........Note this was because a "safety catch did not work".
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
The Linux ATA/IDE guy
-
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 - 21:00:22 EST