On Mon, Sep 30 2002, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Sep 29 2002, jbradford@dial.pipex.com wrote:
> > > > Anyway, people who are having VM trouble with the current 2.5.x series,
> > > > please _complain_, and tell what your workload is. Don't sit silent and
> > > > make us think we're good to go.. And if Ingo is right, I'll do the 3.0.x
> > > > thing.
> > >
> > > I think the broken IDE in 2.5.x has meant that it got seriously less
> > > testing overall than previous development trees :-(. Maybe after
> > > halloween when it stabilises a bit more we'll get more reports in.
> >
> > 2.5 is definitely desktop stable, so please test it if you can. Until
> > recently there was a personal show stopper for me, the tasklist
> > deadline. Now 2.5 is happily running on my desktop as well.
>
> 2.5.38-mm2 has been stable for me on uni, what is the status of SMP? I had
> what looked like logical to physical mapping problems on a BP6 and Abit
> dual P5C-166, resulting in syslog data on every drive including those with
> no Linux partition. That was somewhere around 2.5.22 to 2.5.26.
Well I do all my 2.5 testing on SMP, I don't even remember when I last
compiled a UP 2.5 kernel. Well works for me as I wrote earlier, I don't
keep the deskop up more than a few days at the time though. Then I boot
a newer 2.5 on it.
> > 2.5 IDE stability should be just as good as 2.4-ac.
>
> A laudable goal.
If you know of any points where this is currently not true, I'd like to
hear about it. I'm considering this goal reached. Whether 2.4-ac is at
the level we want is a different story.
-- Jens Axboe- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 22:00:25 EST