On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 13:16, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 07:08:32AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > For starters, the patch you downloaded is a development snapshot, so if
> > it's stable, you're just lucky - it has not undergone extensive testing.
>
> Is it really that bad? I'm in the process of setting up a server with
> ~2.5 TB of XFS storage, and was just about to go for the linux-2.4-xfs
> cvs-tree. Plain 2.4.19 woun't do for me, since there's a hard lockup
> bug in the tg3 driver that wasn't fixed before 2.4.20rc3:
>
> http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0211.3/0167.html
>
> and this is exactly the hardware I'm planning on running my storage
> from.
>
> I've had the impression that the cvs-tree was purely a bugfix only
> tree, and that it should be as safe as the kernel.org tree. Is that not true?
>
In general my workstation is running CVS within a few days of the
current tree. If I change something major I subject myself to it
first. But my workload and your workload are not going to be the
same, so your mileage may vary.
Steve
--
Steve Lord voice: +1-651-683-3511
Principal Engineer, Filesystem Software email: lord@xxxxxxx
|