From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Thu, 07 Dec 2006 13:52:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from evaldomino.Falconstor.com (mail1.falconstor.com [216.223.47.230]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id kB7LqbaG031797 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 13:52:38 -0800 Message-ID: <45788CD1.9010509@falconstor.com> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 16:51:13 -0500 From: "Geir A. Myrestrand" Reply-To: geir.myrestrand@falconstor.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: New CentOS4/RHEL4-compatible xfs module rpms 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> <1165527628.30459.31.camel@edge> In-Reply-To: <1165527628.30459.31.camel@edge> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: nscott@aconex.com Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com, Eric Sandeen Nathan Scott wrote: > 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. Sorry Nathan, but I'm not sure I understand what you refer to with "test out the latest" --are you referring to the kernel or XFS? -- Geir A. Myrestrand