> >otoh, it's likely that SLES10 and RH-whatever will end up shipping with
> >those patches as a backport, so we might as well merge it for them?
We're not awfully keen on seeing these in 2.6.16. We're deep into beta
and can only keep tracking mainline rcs right now as long as they're
bugfix only.
Andrew Morton wrote:
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Jeff Garzik wrote:
The more I think about it, the less motivated I am to push these changes into
2.6.16 at the last minute. Comments?
Absolutely. Considering what happened last time, I wouldn't pull from you
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> > The more I think about it, the less motivated I am to push these changes
> > into
> > 2.6.16 at the last minute. Comments?
>
> Absolutely. Considering what happened last time, I wouldn't pull from
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> The more I think about it, the less motivated I am to push these changes into
> 2.6.16 at the last minute. Comments?
Absolutely. Considering what happened last time, I wouldn't pull from you
even if you pushed.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe
Jeff Kirsher wrote:
Patches 1-11 are e1000 fixes for the 2.6.16 kernel.
The following series implements...
01. Remove multiqueue code until we have support for MSI-X in our hardware
02. Fixes dead counters
03. Fix lock up while setting ring parameters
04. Fix unecessary delay for 82573 controlle
The following patches were diff'd against Garzik's latest 'master' branch and
can be pulled from the following location:
git://198.78.49.142/linux-2.6.git e1000-patchset
Patches 1-11 are e1000 fixes for the 2.6.16 kernel.
The following series implements...
01. Remove multiqueue code until we hav
