From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sander Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.6.xx: sata_mv: another critical fix Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:44:35 +0100 Message-ID: <20060321204435.GE25066@favonius> References: <441F4F95.4070203@garzik.org> <200603210000.36552.lkml@rtr.ca> <20060321121354.GB24977@favonius> <442004E4.7010002@rtr.ca> <20060321153708.GA11703@favonius> <20060321191547.GC20426@favonius> Reply-To: sander@humilis.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from ookhoi.xs4all.nl ([213.84.114.66]:59276 "EHLO favonius.humilis.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932367AbWCUUoi (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:44:38 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Sander , Mark Lord , Mark Lord , Jeff Garzik , Andrew Morton , "linux-ide@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Kernel Linus Torvalds wrote (ao): > > I was not able to let 2.6.16-rc6-mm2 crash yet. > > > > I'll test 2.6.16-rc6-mm1 now. > > Yup, narrowing down where exactly things go south is the way to do it. 2.6.16-rc6-mm1 is as stable as 2.6.16-rc6-mm2 with my simple testcase. Is there a quick patch to suspect, or should I narrow down some more per Andrew's instructions? -- Humilis IT Services and Solutions http://www.humilis.net