Re: Uptime counter

David Weinehall
2004-02-01T22:19:06Z

On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 12:07:40AM +0200, Markus Hästbacka wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Feb 2004, David Weinehall wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 11:34:39PM +0200, Markus Hästbacka wrote:
> > > On Sun, 1 Feb 2004, David Weinehall wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > > Well, you're soon going to reboot to install the upcoming 2.0.40, right?
> > > > And I promise to release 2.0.41 before you've had 497 days of uptime
> > > > with that one... :-)
> > > >
> > > Of course :)
> > > But when you'll stop releasing stuff, then it's time to see that :)
> >
> > When I stop releasing stuff, it's time to upgrade to the 3.x kernel...
> >
> Never! This boxen is sticking with 2.0 :-)
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Btw, when is it coming? :-)
> >
> > When I've got enough feedback that 2.0.40-rc8 is working... Soon, very
> > soon. Unless, of course, you were talking about 2.0.41, which is quite
> > some time away... :-)
> >
> I see no problems with it, maybe I should do some tests or something? :)

Well, since most of the changes in the latest kernels involve
networking, trying it with various different network-adapters would be
interesting, and stress-testing the network-code in general.

If you have the hardware or a really good confidence, a recent
2.2-kernel to compare with and sufficient knowledge of C, have a look at
the network-drivers for a2065 and ariadne, both of which lack the
padding-fixes the other adapters have, since I didn't want to touch that
mess...

Regards: David Weinehall
--
/) David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /) Northern lights wander (\
// Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/