[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Use CVS version or kernel patch?

To: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>, Hristo Grigorov <Hristo.Grigorov@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Use CVS version or kernel patch?
From: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 17:01:45 +0200
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200110081447.f98Elhl24425@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <Message from Hristo Grigorov <Hristo.Grigorov@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20011008144630.FSNN26796.fep02-app.kolumbus.fi@there>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
At 09:47 8-10-2001 -0500, Steve Lord wrote:
> On Monday 08 October 2001 10:08, Seth Mos wrote:
> > At 08:53 8-10-2001 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > >I'm going to set up a new machine with substantially more disk space I
> > >used to have before, and I wonder if I should use the XFS CVS version
> > >or the kernel patch.
> > >
> > >(Forgive me if this is in the FAQ, I haven't found it.)
> >
> > Depends on the hardware. If you have a VIA based system better use the CVS
> > version.
> >
> > Cheers
> Hmm, may I have more information on that ? I have VIA system but I thought
> that the other subsystems of the kernel are taking care about dealing with
> it. I didn't know every FS implementation have to implement workarround for
> that...

I presume Seth is referring to core kernel changes, there is nothing in XFS
related to different architectures of chip.

Correct, there have been a lot of core fixes related to corruption and instability.


Every program has two purposes one for which
it was written and another for which it wasn't
I use the last kind.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>