Message-ID: <45788CD1.9010509@falconstor.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 16:51:13 -0500
From: "Geir A. Myrestrand" <geir.myrestrand@falconstor.com>
Reply-To: geir.myrestrand@falconstor.com
Organization: FalconStor Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: nscott@aconex.com
CC: xfs@oss.sgi.com, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
Subject: Re: New CentOS4/RHEL4-compatible xfs module rpms
References: <4560AB84.9060200@sandeen.net> <45784E71.4080605@falconstor.com>	 <457854CB.5030507@sandeen.net>  <45787ED4.5070801@falconstor.com>	 <1165525906.30459.25.camel@edge>  <45788927.4030207@falconstor.com> <1165527628.30459.31.camel@edge>
In-Reply-To: <1165527628.30459.31.camel@edge>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com
Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 745
Lines: 19

Nathan Scott wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 16:35 -0500, Geir A. Myrestrand wrote:
>> It wouldn't be easy for me to switch to a newer kernel, because it is 
>> not just a matter of my machine --we have a product built for this 
>> particular configuration. Switching to a new kernel would reset our 
>> QA efforts.
> 
> You misunderstood me I think - I didn't suggest switching kernels, just
> that you test out the latest.  If its OK, then its relatively easy to
> search for a change that fixed it.  If its not OK, then theres a bug in
> mainline which should get some attention too.

Sorry Nathan, but I'm not sure I understand what you refer to with "test 
out the latest" --are you referring to the kernel or XFS?

-- 

Geir A. Myrestrand