| To: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Logdev size? |
| From: | Andrew Klaassen <ak@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:25:33 -0400 |
| In-reply-to: | <200107241402.f6OE2qD24056@jen.americas.sgi.com> |
| Mail-followup-to: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <200107241402.f6OE2qD24056@jen.americas.sgi.com> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.3.18i |
On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 09:02:52AM -0500, Steve Lord wrote: > Hmm, 1.0.1 is probably good enough come to think of it, but I > would probably go with the latest cvs kernel given the > highmem/raid deadlocks which have been fixed post 1.0.1. Hmm. That makes me nervous; there isn't a tagged-and-tested CVS kernel, is there? Andrew Klaassen |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Logdev size?, Steve Lord |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Logdev size?, Andrew Klaassen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Logdev size?, Steve Lord |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Logdev size?, Nathan Straz |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |