From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linas@austin.ibm.com Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 11:34:02 -0500 To: Hollis Blanchard Cc: Hawkins Jeffrey-CJH016 , linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: Kernel Panic in 2.2.x Message-ID: <20030530113402.B29314@forte.austin.ibm.com> References: <8177F6132F4D7F43AD9E832D5AAAEE240602BF1D@il02exm04.corp.mot.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from hollisb@us.ibm.com on Fri, May 30, 2003 at 11:20:50AM -0500 Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 11:20:50AM -0500, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > > On Friday, May 30, 2003, at 11:11 US/Central, Hawkins Jeffrey-CJH016 > wrote: > >> > >> With respect to responses, please don't say go to the 2.4.x Kernel > >> as a solution for the Issue....:) This is in our plans, but > >> at this time, > >> we are locked into the 2.2 Kernel due to Proprietary Hardware Driver > >> Support. For the short term, I just want to identify the true root > >> cause (to appease the Management Gods), and to possibly implement > >> a short term fix until we migrate to the 2.4.x or 2.6 Kernel. > > Hi Jeff, I know it's important to you, but I would be pretty surprised > if you could interest anyone else with a 2.2 bug. :) You may want to I did read in slashdot about some group that was planing on supporting version 2.2 indefinitely. Its not a bad idea ... I run a 2.2 kernel on a server; I haven't switched to 2.4 because the particular tool that I need was never ported to 2.4. I occasionally think about doing the port myself, but time constraints & all ... I'm expecting to keep that server on 2.2 forever, or at least till the hardware dies. Latest & greatest is only the best if you are a developer. For users, old-trustworthy is usually a much better bet. --linas ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/