On Tue, 2001-12-18 at 17:30, Keith Owens wrote:
>
> The CVS tree is bleeding edge with minimal testing, it has not been run
> through a full QA check. Since Marcelo seems to be making sure that
> 2.4.17 is stable before it is released I would recommend waiting for
> the 2.4.17 kernel and the XFS split patches, there are too many bugs in
> 2.4.16 base for my liking. I will not generate the split patches until
> 3-4 days after 2.4.17-XFS hits the CVS tree, so the code has gone
> through QA before the patches are released.
Keith and I are saying different things here ;-)
I would actually say that the current cvs tree is probably the most
bug free XFS we have, given that quite a number of fixes have gone in.
Does the 2.4.16 kernel stand up to more of a beating that the 2.4.14
kernel is another matter and one I cannot really comment on. Testing
here is in development is not seeing problems, but we do test less
configurations than the testing organization.
I do know there is at least one memory leak in xfs with 2.4.14 which is
fixed in the cvs tree.
Steve
--
Steve Lord voice: +1-651-683-3511
Principal Engineer, Filesystem Software email: lord@xxxxxxx
|