From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from [195.159.176.226] ([195.159.176.226]:42081 "EHLO blaine.gmane.org" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755663AbdBQI0d (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Feb 2017 03:26:33 -0500 Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cedrx-0001cV-HQ for linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:26:21 +0100 To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: Re: Opps.. Should be 4.9/4.10 Experiences Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 08:26:15 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Imran Geriskovan posted on Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:42:09 +0200 as excerpted: > Opps.. I mean 4.9/4.10 Experiences > > On 2/16/17, Imran Geriskovan wrote: >> What are your experiences for btrfs regarding 4.10 and 4.11 kernels? >> I'm still on 4.8.x. I'd be happy to hear from anyone using 4.1x for a >> very typical single disk setup. Are they reasonably stable/good enough >> for this case? I ran 4.9 and have been on 4.10 since before rc1. Btrfs has been fine here, tho there have been some late rc7/8 fixes. I've had and still have some 4.10 issues, but they're amdgpu, not btrfs related. (Unfortunately, between working long hours and being sick partly as a result, I've had little time to report them, but booting with amdgpu.dpm=0 has let me continue running 4.10-git, tho I don't know exactly why if I'm not going to have time to report problems anyway.) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman