On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, J Sloan wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > Bzzt, wrong. Red Hat 7 compiles the 2.4 tree beautifully with gcc 2.96 as well.
> > Please grow up.
>
> Yes indeed - on my quad CPU Red Hat 7 server, I accidentally
> forgot to say CC=kgcc during the last kernel build, and ended
> up with
On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, J Sloan wrote:
Alan Cox wrote:
Bzzt, wrong. Red Hat 7 compiles the 2.4 tree beautifully with gcc 2.96 as well.
Please grow up.
Yes indeed - on my quad CPU Red Hat 7 server, I accidentally
forgot to say CC=kgcc during the last kernel build, and ended
up with a
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Ok, this contains one of the fixes for the dirty inode buffer list (the
> other fix is pending, simply because I still want to understand why it
> would be needed at all). Al?
>
> Also, it has the final installment of the PageDirty handling, and now
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Ok, this contains one of the fixes for the dirty inode buffer list (the
other fix is pending, simply because I still want to understand why it
would be needed at all). Al?
Also, it has the final installment of the PageDirty handling, and now
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Keith Owens wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:56:09 +0100 (BST),
> Tigran Aivazian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >one correction -- it was "down and up the interface" that did the trick
> >and not deleting the 64M mtrr entry. I.e. the eepro100 problem is better
> >formulated
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Keith Owens wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:56:09 +0100 (BST),
Tigran Aivazian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
one correction -- it was "down and up the interface" that did the trick
and not deleting the 64M mtrr entry. I.e. the eepro100 problem is better
formulated as "when
6 matches
Mail list logo
