Re: smbfs (Re: BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! (2.6.18.2))

2006-11-19 Thread Rasmus Bøg Hansen
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 10:30:41 + (UTC) > Oleg Verych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> [ Adding e-mail of Andrew Morton, he may have clue about who to ping ;] >> [ MAINTAINERS.smbfs seems to be emply ] > > smbfs is unmaint

Re: smbfs (Re: BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! (2.6.18.2))

2006-11-17 Thread Andrew Morton
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 10:30:41 + (UTC) Oleg Verych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [ Adding e-mail of Andrew Morton, he may have clue about who to ping ;] > [ MAINTAINERS.smbfs seems to be emply ] smbfs is unmaintained and we'd like to kill it off. Please use cifs.

Re: smbfs (Re: BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! (2.6.18.2))

2006-11-17 Thread Rasmus Bøg Hansen
Oleg Verych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [ Adding e-mail of Andrew Morton, he may have clue about who to ping ;] > [ MAINTAINERS.smbfs seems to be emply ] > > On 2006-11-14, Rasmus BЬg Hansen wrote: > [] >> [1.] One line summary of the problem: >> >> Kernel BUG's a

smbfs (Re: BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! (2.6.18.2))

2006-11-16 Thread Oleg Verych
[ Adding e-mail of Andrew Morton, he may have clue about who to ping ;] [ MAINTAINERS.smbfs seems to be emply ] On 2006-11-14, Rasmus BЬg Hansen wrote: [] > [1.] One line summary of the problem: > > Kernel BUG's and freezes after a soft lockup. > > [2.] Full descrip