| To: | Martin.Bligh@xxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000 |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:36:11 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | gh@xxxxxxxxxx, hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, tcw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, niv@xxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <60449712.1031311608@[10.10.2.3]> |
| References: | <E17nNhM-0003PD-00@w-gerrit2> <60449712.1031311608@[10.10.2.3]> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: "Martin J. Bligh" <Martin.Bligh@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:26:49 -0700 The fact that we're doing something different from everyone else and turning up a different set of kernel issues is a good thing, to my mind. You're right, we could use Tux if we wanted to ... but that doesn't stop Apache being interesting ;-) Tux does not obviate Apache from the equation. See my other emails. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, Martin J. Bligh |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, Martin J. Bligh |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |