![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Mike Fedyk wrote: > Nick Piggin wrote: > >> >> Probably not worth the bother. It is easy enough for anyone to >> test random things, but the reason your feedback is so important >> is because you are actually *using* the system. > > > I completely understand what you're saying. I have seen enough > threads where someone refused to test patches. So let me be more > specific. > > I'll have to test the kernel on two other machines for a few days > before I put it on this particular machine. Unfortunately, both of > them have < 1.5GB ram. > That is quite alright. I didn't intend to sound pushy in that message, and I fully understand if you refuse to test patches on your production machine. > So let me know which patches are most likely to fix this problem. > > PS, if I can apply them to my 2.6.1 kernel, then I wouldn't have to > run the base kernel to compare changes of 2.6.1 -> 2.6.3 -> 2.6.3-mm > -> your patch. > > Each step would require a week-day to get a fair compairison. > The last patch I posted would be a good one to test if you possibly can. You should hear someone shout within a few days if it does anything nasty, so the 2.6.3-mm+patch path is probably safer ;) Nick - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:01 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||