On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 02:09 +0100, Luís Picciochi Oliveira wrote: > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:44 AM, Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> wrote: > > On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 22:31 +0100, Luís Picciochi Oliveira wrote: > > > > Please do test that as soon as possible. This change is included in > > release candidates for 2.6.35 and will need to be reverted there as well > > if it caused this regression. > > Please see my previous answer on this bug report (I also sent it to > you, you should have received that on your mailbox as well).
Yes, sorry. > I have also compiled the "vanilla" 2.6.34 kernel from kernel.org, > which I'll test tomorrow. > Should I also test the current 2.6.35 rc? Please can you confirm or correct the following summary of your results so far: Debian 2.6.32-15: fails to pass traffic Debian 2.6.32-15 with patch reverted: good Debian 2.6.34-1~experimental.2: fails to pass traffic Debian 2.6.34-1~experimental.2 with patch reverted: driver crashes! Testing either or both of those additional versions should provide useful information. Unfortunately it looks like there may be a second bug here. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
