[Fwd: Plain 2.4.5 VM... (and 2.4.5-ac3)]

2001-05-31 Thread Benjamin Redelings I
Here is a message from Steve Kieu that he couldn't get through... -- Einstein did not prove that everything is relative. Einstein explained how the speed of light could be constant. Benjamin Redelings I <>< http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~bredelin/ Just add my experience here... I use up t

Re: Plain 2.4.5 VM... (and 2.4.5-ac3)

2001-05-31 Thread Benjamin Redelings I
Vincent Stemen wrote: > The problem is, that's not true. These problems are not slipping > through because of lack of testers. Just to add some sanity to this thread, I have been using the 2.4.x kernels ever since they came out, on my personal workstation and on some workstations that

Re: Plain 2.4.5 VM... (and 2.4.5-ac3)

2001-05-30 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Vincent Stemen wrote: > On Wednesday 30 May 2001 15:17, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Wed, 30 May 2001, Vincent Stemen wrote: > > > On Wednesday 30 May 2001 01:02, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > On Tue, 29 May 2001, Vincent Stemen wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday 29 May 2001 15:16,

Re: Plain 2.4.5 VM... (and 2.4.5-ac3)

2001-05-30 Thread Vincent Stemen
On Wednesday 30 May 2001 15:17, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Wed, 30 May 2001, Vincent Stemen wrote: > > On Wednesday 30 May 2001 01:02, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > On Tue, 29 May 2001, Vincent Stemen wrote: > > > > On Tuesday 29 May 2001 15:16, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > > > a reasonably stable releas

Re: Plain 2.4.5 VM... (and 2.4.5-ac3)

2001-05-30 Thread Vincent Stemen
On Wednesday 30 May 2001 15:30, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Wed, 30 May 2001, Vincent Stemen wrote: > > The problem is, that's not true. These problems are not slipping > > through because of lack of testers. As Alan said, the VM problem has > > been lurking, which means that it was known already.

Re: Plain 2.4.5 VM... (and 2.4.5-ac3)

2001-05-30 Thread Vincent Stemen
Ronald Bultje writes: > On 30 May 2001 14:58:57 -0500, Vincent Stemen wrote: > > There was a new 8139too driver added to the the 2.4.5 (I think) kernel > > which Alan Cox took back out and reverted to the old one in his > > 2.4.5-ac? versions because it is apparently causing lockups. > > Shou

Re: Plain 2.4.5 VM... (and 2.4.5-ac3)

2001-05-30 Thread Rik van Riel
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Vincent Stemen wrote: > The problem is, that's not true. These problems are not slipping > through because of lack of testers. As Alan said, the VM problem has > been lurking, which means that it was known already. Fully agreed, it went through because of a lack of hours p

Re: Plain 2.4.5 VM... (and 2.4.5-ac3)

2001-05-30 Thread Alan Cox
> There was a new 8139too driver added to the the 2.4.5 (I think) kernel > which Alan Cox took back out and reverted to the old one in his > 2.4.5-ac? versions because it is apparently causing lockups. > Shouldn't this new driver have been released in a 2.5.x development > kernel and proven there

Re: Plain 2.4.5 VM... (and 2.4.5-ac3)

2001-05-30 Thread Vincent Stemen
On Wednesday 30 May 2001 01:02, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Tue, 29 May 2001, Vincent Stemen wrote: > > On Tuesday 29 May 2001 15:16, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > a reasonably stable release until 2.2.12. I do not understand why > > > > code with such serious reproducible problems is being introduced >

Re: Plain 2.4.5 VM... (and 2.4.5-ac3)

2001-05-29 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Tue, 29 May 2001, Vincent Stemen wrote: > On Tuesday 29 May 2001 15:16, Alan Cox wrote: > > > a reasonably stable release until 2.2.12. I do not understand why > > > code with such serious reproducible problems is being introduced into > > > the even numbered kernels. What happened to the pl

Re: Plain 2.4.5 VM... (and 2.4.5-ac3)

2001-05-29 Thread Alan Cox
> a reasonably stable release until 2.2.12. I do not understand why > code with such serious reproducible problems is being introduced into > the even numbered kernels. What happened to the plan to use only the Who said it was introduced ?? It was more 'lurking' than introduced. And unfortunat

Re: Plain 2.4.5 VM... (and 2.4.5-ac3)

2001-05-29 Thread Vincent Stemen
On Tuesday 29 May 2001 10:37, elko wrote: > On Tuesday 29 May 2001 11:10, Alan Cox wrote: > > > It's not a bug. It's a feature. It only breaks systems that are run > > > w= ith "too > > > little" swap, and the only difference from 2.2 till now is, that the > > > de= finition > > > of "too little