netdev
[Top] [All Lists]
<prev [Date] next>
[Advanced]
 <prev [Thread] next>

Re: Hard freeze with 2.6.10-rc3 and QoS, worked fine with 2.6.9

from [Patrick McHardy] [Permanent Link][Original]
To: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Hard freeze with 2.6.10-rc3 and QoS, worked fine with 2.6.9
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 17:57:07 +0100
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, tgraf@xxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxx, tomc@xxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1102507470.1051.27.camel@jzny.localdomain>
References: <1102380430.6103.6.camel@buffy> <20041206224441.628e7885.akpm@osdl.org> <1102422544.1088.98.camel@jzny.localdomain> <41B5E188.5050800@trash.net> <20041207170748.GF1371@postel.suug.ch> <41B5E722.2080600@trash.net> <20041207213053.6bb602c1.davem@davemloft.net> <1102507470.1051.27.camel@jzny.localdomain>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041008 Debian/1.7.3-5 
jamal wrote:

I can almost guarantee that one or more of those tests i outlined would
fail. So i would suggest a revert until the testing has been done.

Please be more specific than an "almost guarantee" that
"one or more tests" may fail when asking to revert a patch
that fixes an easily triggerable crash. For example, point
to the code that makes you think it might fail.



[More with this subject...]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date:  Re: IPSEC MIB instrumentatoin ??, James Morris
Next by Date:  Re: Hard freeze with 2.6.10-rc3 and QoS, worked fine with 2.6.9, Thomas Graf
Previous by Thread:  Re: Hard freeze with 2.6.10-rc3 and QoS, worked fine with 2.6.9, jamal
Next by Thread:  Re: Hard freeze with 2.6.10-rc3 and QoS, worked fine with 2.6.9, Stephen Hemminger
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]