On 3/11/07, Thibaut VARENE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/11/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has anyone had any trouble with RSDL on the stable kernels (ie not -mm)?
Tested fine so far on ppc, ia64 and (mostly) parisc.
I meant ppc64, actually.
Gomen.
--
Thibaut VARENE
http://ww
On 3/11/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Has anyone had any trouble with RSDL on the stable kernels (ie not -mm)?
Tested fine so far on ppc, ia64 and (mostly) parisc.
HTH
--
Thibaut VARENE
http://www.parisc-linux.org/~varenet/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubsc
On 3/10/07, Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 04:56:57PM -0500, michael chang wrote:
> On 3/10/07, Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >BTW, Con, I think that you should base your work on 2.6.20.[23] and not
> >2.6.20 next time, due to this conflict. It will
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 04:56:57PM -0500, michael chang wrote:
> On 3/10/07, Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >BTW, Con, I think that you should base your work on 2.6.20.[23] and not
> >2.6.20 next time, due to this conflict. It will get wider adoption.
^^
> Maybe I'm n
On 3/10/07, Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BTW, Con, I think that you should base your work on 2.6.20.[23] and not
2.6.20 next time, due to this conflict. It will get wider adoption.
Maybe I'm naive, but I find this hard to understand -- 2.6.20.2 didn't
exist when Con published his pa
5 matches
Mail list logo