| To: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: SG patches |
| From: | Andrew Klaassen <ak@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 29 Jun 2001 13:58:22 -0400 |
| In-reply-to: | <20010629134322.D782@xxxxxxx> |
| Mail-followup-to: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <20010626230456.A16389@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010629134322.D782@xxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.3.18i |
On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 01:43:22PM -0400, Andrew Klaassen wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 11:04:56PM -0400, > Alan Eldridge wrote: > > There's a scsi generic (sg) patch that needs to go against > > 2.4.5 to zap that unkillable process condition I was running > > into. > Is this patch needed for 2.4 kernels under 2.4.5, too? Lemme make that clearer - is the patch needed for 2.4.0 to 2.4.4 kernels? Andrew Klaassen |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: SG patches, Andrew Klaassen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | kernel build issues, Rob Lembree |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: SG patches, Andrew Klaassen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: SG patches, Alan Eldridge |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |