Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*2\.4\.20\-18\s+Red\s+Hat\s+errata\s+kernel\s+with\s+XFS\s+1\.2\.0\s*$/: 28 ]

Total 28 documents matching your query.

1. 2.4.20-18 Red Hat errata kernel with XFS 1.2.0 (score: 1)
Author: Kelemen@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 20:20:22 +0200 (CEST)
New cannon fodder has just arrived. They compile, not boot tested, few changes. These will need to be recompiled on Red Hat Linux 9 with the posix threading support enabled in the spec file. http://
/archives/xfs/2003-06/msg00066.html (8,091 bytes)

2. Re: 2.4.20-18 Red Hat errata kernel with XFS 1.2.0 (score: 1)
Author: uffie@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:50:07 -0400 (EDT)
"There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering kaboom!" Nope, it seems to work for me on a mostly normal RH8 box. dmesg below. I'll have to grab the srpm later and play with it.. unless you happened t
/archives/xfs/2003-06/msg00067.html (15,915 bytes)

3. Re: 2.4.20-18 Red Hat errata kernel with XFS 1.2.0 (score: 1)
Author: d <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:53:22 +0100 (WEST)
Hi Seth! Was those built under redhat 7.3 or any other? -- Paulo Matos -- -- -- --
/archives/xfs/2003-06/msg00070.html (9,508 bytes)

4. Re: 2.4.20-18 Red Hat errata kernel with XFS 1.2.0 (score: 1)
Author: pjsm@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 13:41:28 +0200
Hi Seth! Was those built under redhat 7.3 or any other? Yes, 7.3 it is. I have no boxes running anything newer. It looks like we will be switching to Red Hat ES pretty soon for the database box which
/archives/xfs/2003-06/msg00071.html (10,353 bytes)

5. Re: 2.4.20-18 Red Hat errata kernel with XFS 1.2.0 (score: 1)
Author: een <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: 11 Jun 2003 16:28:35 -0500
Could it be possible to modularize the XFS? Kind of like an XFS patch-less install? I dunno if that's possible, somewhat like how some of these driver installers work now a days for linux? If you che
/archives/xfs/2003-06/msg00092.html (10,432 bytes)

6. Re: 2.4.20-18 Red Hat errata kernel with XFS 1.2.0 (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 11 Jun 2003 16:36:41 -0500
You need core kernel changes to support XFS... especially in 2.4.9! So a patch-less install.... nope. OTOH we are talking about distributing the next release in 2 packages, an "xfs-ready" kernel, and
/archives/xfs/2003-06/msg00094.html (10,265 bytes)

7. Re: 2.4.20-18 Red Hat errata kernel with XFS 1.2.0 (score: 1)
Author: sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Date: 11 Jun 2003 16:41:19 -0500
This would greatly help those of us possibly moving to ES or AS. :) -- Austin Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Coremetrics, Inc.
/archives/xfs/2003-06/msg00095.html (10,623 bytes)

8. Re: 2.4.20-18 Red Hat errata kernel with XFS 1.2.0 (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 17:44:36 -0400 (EDT)
Quoting Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>: So what you're saying is that [nearly] all of the core kernel changes are static? That is, other than to accomodate changes by the kernel between versions that
/archives/xfs/2003-06/msg00096.html (10,827 bytes)

9. Re: 2.4.20-18 Red Hat errata kernel with XFS 1.2.0 (score: 1)
Author: .smith@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 17:47:33 -0400 (EDT)
Quoting Austin Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: Hmmm, do you think this would make Red Hat might be more "open" to including those core changes in its own kernels? I.e., as long as they didn't affect
/archives/xfs/2003-06/msg00097.html (10,425 bytes)

10. Re: 2.4.20-18 Red Hat errata kernel with XFS 1.2.0 (score: 1)
Author: .smith@xxxxxxxx>
Date: 11 Jun 2003 16:50:50 -0500
for a given kernel rev, the xfs<->kernel interface has stabilized quite a lot, yes. Not to say it will never change, of course. ahh... nope. :) XFS is in 2.5, so it's mostly a moot point. It's possib
/archives/xfs/2003-06/msg00098.html (10,800 bytes)

11. Re: 2.4.20-18 Red Hat errata kernel with XFS 1.2.0 (score: 1)
Author: sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Date: 11 Jun 2003 16:54:42 -0500
Not unless Red Hat included the necessary core patches... Any kernel module we build is still tied to the specific kernel it was built against. It's just that if we release kernel-2.4.20-18.9sgi1, we
/archives/xfs/2003-06/msg00099.html (10,202 bytes)

12. Re: 2.4.20-18 Red Hat errata kernel with XFS 1.2.0 (score: 1)
Author: <akpm@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 11:40:17 +0100 (WEST)
Does 2.6 will include XFS completely, or will we live with two branches, one on kernel tree and another side away? A little off-topic question, anyone know if there is an expected release date for 2.
/archives/xfs/2003-06/msg00108.html (10,131 bytes)

13. Re: 2.4.20-18 Red Hat errata kernel with XFS 1.2.0 (score: 1)
Author: pjsm@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:58:44 +0200
Paulo Matos wrote: On 11 Jun 2003, Eric Sandeen wrote: Does 2.5/2.6 completely take care of providing these interfaces? XFS is in 2.5, so it's mostly a moot point. It's possible that from time to tim
/archives/xfs/2003-06/msg00109.html (10,538 bytes)

14. Re: 2.4.20-18 Red Hat errata kernel with XFS 1.2.0 (score: 1)
Author: esmi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:00:48 +0200
Does 2.6 will include XFS completely, or will we live with two branches, one on kernel tree and another side away? XFS filesystems are included although I think dmapi is excluded untill it is usable
/archives/xfs/2003-06/msg00110.html (10,413 bytes)

15. 2.4.20-18 Red Hat errata kernel with XFS 1.2.0 (score: 1)
Author: EMEN Peter <Peter.Kelemen@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 20:20:22 +0200 (CEST)
New cannon fodder has just arrived. They compile, not boot tested, few changes. These will need to be recompiled on Red Hat Linux 9 with the posix threading support enabled in the spec file. http://
/archives/xfs/2003-06/msg00394.html (8,091 bytes)

16. Re: 2.4.20-18 Red Hat errata kernel with XFS 1.2.0 (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:50:07 -0400 (EDT)
"There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering kaboom!" Nope, it seems to work for me on a mostly normal RH8 box. dmesg below. I'll have to grab the srpm later and play with it.. unless you happened t
/archives/xfs/2003-06/msg00395.html (15,915 bytes)

17. Re: 2.4.20-18 Red Hat errata kernel with XFS 1.2.0 (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:53:22 +0100 (WEST)
Hi Seth! Was those built under redhat 7.3 or any other? -- Paulo Matos -- -- -- --
/archives/xfs/2003-06/msg00398.html (9,508 bytes)

18. Re: 2.4.20-18 Red Hat errata kernel with XFS 1.2.0 (score: 1)
Author: xxx>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 13:41:28 +0200
Hi Seth! Was those built under redhat 7.3 or any other? Yes, 7.3 it is. I have no boxes running anything newer. It looks like we will be switching to Red Hat ES pretty soon for the database box which
/archives/xfs/2003-06/msg00399.html (10,353 bytes)

19. Re: 2.4.20-18 Red Hat errata kernel with XFS 1.2.0 (score: 1)
Author: d@xxxxxxx>
Date: 11 Jun 2003 16:28:35 -0500
Could it be possible to modularize the XFS? Kind of like an XFS patch-less install? I dunno if that's possible, somewhat like how some of these driver installers work now a days for linux? If you che
/archives/xfs/2003-06/msg00420.html (10,432 bytes)

20. Re: 2.4.20-18 Red Hat errata kernel with XFS 1.2.0 (score: 1)
Author: in Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 11 Jun 2003 16:36:41 -0500
You need core kernel changes to support XFS... especially in 2.4.9! So a patch-less install.... nope. OTOH we are talking about distributing the next release in 2 packages, an "xfs-ready" kernel, and
/archives/xfs/2003-06/msg00422.html (10,265 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu