Re: Linux 2.2.18pre4

From: Chip Salzenberg (chip@valinux.com)
Date: Wed Sep 13 2000 - 07:43:17 EST

Next message: Jamie Lokier: "Re: NFS locking bug -- limited mtime resolution means nfs_lock() does not provide coherency guarantee"
Previous message: Mason, Christopher (Paging) Engineering: "Patches"
In reply to: Mike Castle: "Re: Linux 2.2.18pre4"
Next in thread: Alexander Viro: "Re: Linux 2.2.18pre4"
Reply: Alexander Viro: "Re: Linux 2.2.18pre4"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

According to Mike Castle:
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 07:57:38PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> > So basically the situation is that people prefer to switch the whole
> > OS as opposed to applying a kernel patch?
>
> Or multiple kernel patches.
> NFS. RAID. IDE.

Bigmem. LVM. LFS. Rawio. Serial. Ext3.

-- 
Chip Salzenberg              - a.k.a. -              <chip@valinux.com>
"I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence,
    but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early."  // MST3K
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Jamie Lokier: "Re: NFS locking bug -- limited mtime resolution means nfs_lock() does not provide coherency guarantee"
Previous message: Mason, Christopher (Paging) Engineering: "Patches"
In reply to: Mike Castle: "Re: Linux 2.2.18pre4"
Next in thread: Alexander Viro: "Re: Linux 2.2.18pre4"
Reply: Alexander Viro: "Re: Linux 2.2.18pre4"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 21:00:20 EST