From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Thu, 07 Dec 2006 13:41:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from postoffice.aconex.com (mail.app.aconex.com [203.89.192.138]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id kB7LfQaG030384 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 13:41:29 -0800 Subject: Re: New CentOS4/RHEL4-compatible xfs module rpms From: Nathan Scott Reply-To: nscott@aconex.com In-Reply-To: <45788927.4030207@falconstor.com> References: <4560AB84.9060200@sandeen.net> <45784E71.4080605@falconstor.com> <457854CB.5030507@sandeen.net> <45787ED4.5070801@falconstor.com> <1165525906.30459.25.camel@edge> <45788927.4030207@falconstor.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:40:28 +1100 Message-Id: <1165527628.30459.31.camel@edge> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: geir.myrestrand@falconstor.com Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com, Eric Sandeen On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 16:35 -0500, Geir A. Myrestrand wrote: > > It wouldn't be easy for me to switch to a newer kernel, because it is > not just a matter of my machine --we have a product built for this > particular configuration. Switching to a new kernel would reset our > QA efforts. You misunderstood me I think - I didn't suggest switching kernels, just that you test out the latest. If its OK, then its relatively easy to search for a change that fixed it. If its not OK, then theres a bug in mainline which should get some attention too. cheers. -- Nathan