[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Tighten up serverworks workaround.
> We are a bit astonished since we expected serverworks-based hardware to perform
> _better_ than VIA...

My experience is that in general it does.

> The email you commented is only a small hint that within -pre5 there are still
> declared-unknown parts of the chipset. Based on the theory that they are named
> "unknown" because nobody around here knows them, it might have been an adequate
> idea to ask someone from serverworks, or not? This is in no way meant offensive.

Sure, but lets not give senior folks at Serverworks a full blast of l/k.
Its better to sumarise the issues. In some cases vendors do have docs,
so the unknown device ids missing from lspci for example can be dealt with
outside already
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.045 / U:3.388 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site