On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 14:57 +0100, Olivier Galibert wrote: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 03:43:14PM +0900, Ian Kent wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 11:33 +0900, Ian Kent wrote: > > > On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 19:18 +0100, Olivier Galibert wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 03:07:41AM +0900, Ian Kent wrote: > > > > > It may be better to update to a later kernel so I don't have to port > > > > > the > > > > > patch to several different kernels. Is that possible? > > > > > > > > Sure, 2.6.20 or -git? > > > > > > 2.6.20 has all the patches I've proposed so far except for the one we're > > > working on so that would be best for me. > > > > > > Seems there may still be a problem with the patch so I'll let you know > > > what's happening as soon as I can. > > > > I think I'm just about done. > > > > Could you try using the two patches here against 2.6.20 please: > > The patch works beautifully, no more failures with my test rig, until > the point where the kernel crashes. Since the crashes happen without > the patch too, you're off the hook, but that means I can't deploy it > for harsher testing yet. > > No wonder Dave Jones is prudent about updating kernels in fc :-)
Indeed. Which kernel can you use? I believe that 2200 had another problem so can you use an fc5 kernel later than that? Ian - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
