Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 May 1999 20:19:49 +0200 | From | Brian Schau <> | Subject | [Fwd: Undeliverable: Re: Mysterious lockups in 2.2.9.] |
| |
Couldn't reach mr. Cox ;o)
System Administrator wrote: > > Your message > > To: Alan Cox > Subject: Re: Mysterious lockups in 2.2.9. > Sent: Tue, 25 May 1999 20:14:51 +0200 > > did not reach the following recipient(s): > > c=DK;a= ;p=Fleggaard;o=FLEGGAARD;dda:SMTP=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk; on > Tue, 25 May 1999 20:15:17 +0200 > The recipient name is not recognized > The MTS-ID of the original message is: c=DK;a= > ;p=Fleggaard;l=INETSERVER9905251814KWVNPL1B > MSEXCH:IMS:Fleggaard:FLEGGAARD:INETSERVER 3550 (000B099C) 550 > rejected: administrative prohibition > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Re: Mysterious lockups in 2.2.9. > Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 20:14:51 +0200 > From: Brian Schau <bsc@fleggaard.dk> > To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> > > Alan Cox wrote: > > > > Its doing it to a pile of people > > I don't get it. I have a HP Vectra VL desktop at work. It never > needs to be rebooted (except when I have to do some occasional work in > Win NT (yuck!)) .. and it is running 2.2.9 and the icewm manager. > The only difference is in the architecture: pure scsi at home, pure ide > at work. > > Is there any known bugs in the scsi-layer in 2.2.9? > > I never encountered lockups in 2.2.5 or 2.2.7 (didn't test .6 or .8) - > so, what's changed between these versions and 2.2.9? > > I need to examine it more deeply ... ;o) > > Kind regards, > > Brian > > (P.S: Thanks for taking your time to answer my stupid questions - I know > you're a busy man ...)
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |