Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 Jul 1997 02:05:24 -0700 (PDT) | From | "Richard A. Soderberg" <> | Subject | Re: 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.
Richard
On Tue, 8 Jul 1997, Alan Cox wrote:
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 15:30:41 +0100 > From: Alan Cox <alan@cymru.net> > To: hpa@transmeta.com, linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu > Cc: tovalds@transmeta.com > 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 >
-- http://www.dnsi.net/
| |