From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.iinet.net.au (symphony-03.iinet.net.au [203.59.3.35]) by dsl2.external.hp.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D95FD4837 for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 12:27:43 -0600 (MDT) Received: (from andrew@localhost) by guinness.internal.neep.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id CAA07955 for parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 02:27:24 +0800 Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 02:27:20 +0800 From: Andrew Shugg To: parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] How to merge Kernel 2.4.9 for hppa and new kernel 2.4.10 Message-ID: <20010927022717.C2203@neep.com.au> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from Jurriaan.Kalkman@zrt.nl on Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 08:16:49AM +0200 List-ID: Quoth Jurriaan Kalkman: > If you read the linux-kernel mailing list, you'll see that some people > claim 2.4.10 is the best thing since sliced bread, but the first > serious VM problems have been sighted already, so upgrading right away > is risky. Getting a bit off-topic - but apart from keeping a careful eye on the linux-kernel list, does there exist any reasonable means of finding out stuff like this? Mainly known flaws in a given kernel release ... such as 'serious VM problems in 2.4.10', 'foobar was badly broken in 2.4.6' and so on. Andrew. -- Andrew Shugg http://www.neep.com.au/ "Just remember, Mr Fawlty, there's always someone worse off than yourself." "Is there? Well I'd like to meet him. I could do with a good laugh."