It seems our mails crossed.
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 01:21:02PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> hm. I don't have this patch queued, but I _do_ have an equivalent patch
> for e1000 queued; what's up with that? Nobody seems to have paid much
> attention to the e1000 fix.
I spotted the e100 patch
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 15:01:22 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linas Vepstas) wrote:
Hi,
Please apply the following one-liner patch to
what will become the stable 2.6.18. This patch is
low-risk because it affects only the PCI error
recovery code, which dosn't run on most platf
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 15:01:22 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linas Vepstas) wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Please apply the following one-liner patch to
> what will become the stable 2.6.18. This patch is
> low-risk because it affects only the PCI error
> recovery code, which dosn't run on most platforms
> (i
Hi,
Please apply the following one-liner patch to
what will become the stable 2.6.18. This patch is
low-risk because it affects only the PCI error
recovery code, which dosn't run on most platforms
(in particular, isn't invoked on current x86/ia64).
This patch was originally sent on 29 June
