On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 16:59:01 +0100, Rod Furey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Does all this mean that we'll be able to go
>
> IPL 201 PARM saveseg=suse80nn
>
> or not? Or is that what the missing part after the above "and to" was
> going to be?
Yea, that's what autosave means.
with kind regards
Car
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 16:59:01 +0100, Rod Furey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does all this mean that we'll be able to go
>
> IPL 201 PARM saveseg=suse80nn
>
> or not? Or is that what the missing part after the above "and to" was
> going to be?
I think the devil is in "to have to kernel autosave its
>We are looking forward to do a better implementation with the new
kbuild
>system that allows to set kernel
>parameters at IPL time via "parm", to have to kernel autosave itself
into
>an NSS, and to (sic)
Does all this mean that we'll be able to go
IPL 201 PARM saveseg=suse80nn
or not? Or is that w
habetur et non datur, nondum
habetur, quomodo habenda est
David Kreuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: Linux on 390 Port <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17/11/2004 02:47 AM
Please respond to Linux on 390 Port
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:linux nss
Hi:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 20:47:49 -0500, David Kreuter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi: Does the latest linux NSS technique save more than the <> 1.5Mb from a
> few years ago? Anyone know the latest
> status of the Linux NSS? Does it still the require the TRACE command to force
Hi: Does the latest linux NSS technique save more than the <> 1.5Mb from a few
years ago? Anyone know the latest
status of the Linux NSS? Does it still the require the TRACE command to force
linux to STOP prior to the SAVESYS?
Thanks,
