![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Nick Piggin wrote: > > > Mike Fedyk wrote: >> 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. No problem. It is really sad when a problem could be fixed if only the origional reporter put more effort into testing the proposed fixes. Heh, so let me keep from being one of those reporters... > >> 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 ;) > Ok, I'll get started compiling tonight. Be sure to CC me if you have any updates to this patch. Mike - 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 [W:1.980 / U:0.010 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||