On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 00:32, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Sat, 2003-08-30 at 13:20, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > No - they don't build unless the symlink exists, so you can assume I > > create it myself every time this happens. Now here's something REAL odd > > - I reinstalled 0.5.1tmb and now THAT'S got the bug too! ARGH. I'll keep > > playing. I'm going to try some different versions of nvnet... > > Who's the terribly handsome guy who wrote the above? > > :) > > OK, more in the Neverending Kernel Saga...I rebuilt nvnet for my new > installation of 0.5.1tmb, using nvnet 1.0-0248 instead of 1.0-0261 this > time, and it works correctly; i.e. I'm back where I started, non-buggy > behaviour with the 0.5.1tmb kernel. I have no idea if it was the > rebuild, the 0248 vs. 0261 or just the phase of the moon that made it > work :). I'll do some more experimenting with the new tmb kernel > tomorrow afternoon (gotta work tomorrow morning).
One more update - now using 2.4.22-3tmb again and it seems OK, using the nvnet 1.0-0248 driver. I'm not ENTIRELY convinced it's as simple as nvnet 1.0-0248 vs. 1.0-0261 yet, but that certainly looks like a factor. Thomas, you got around to testing this yet? -- adamw
