[lkml]   [1997]   [Jul]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 2.1.44
    I'd have to say, without any unusla settings than normal, I booted 2.1.44
    without a single lockup, crash, or OOPS. Didn't even notice the fs
    corruption for a little while till I rmed some files and checked my disk
    space. Nothing special setup, copied a .config from 2.1.44-3... Even
    included modules for all the filesystems.. Not a single error. 2.1.43
    clean untar, patched with patch-2.1.44.gz. I forgot to install the
    modules, so I never tried testing them, and I only booted 2.1.44 once.


    On Tue, 8 Jul 1997, Alan Cox wrote:

    > Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 15:30:41 +0100
    > From: Alan Cox <>
    > To:,
    > Cc:
    > Subject: 2.1.44
    > 2.1.44pre3 wasnt bad - in fact its been the best for a while. 2.1.44 is
    > a bit of a disaster. It doesnt boot, and on the odd combination of settings
    > that do boot it scrambles your disk
    > The responsible thing to do would surely to be to rename it 2.1.44pre4 before
    > it does further needless damage. I've no problem with 2.1.x having odd suprises
    > like sometimes eating bits of disks - it is test code, but now we know its
    > extremely dangerous moving it from the normal place would be smart.
    > Alan


     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:39    [W:0.019 / U:15.080 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site