From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 18 Sep 2001 01:06:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 18 Sep 2001 01:06:48 -0400 Received: from penguin.e-mind.com ([195.223.140.120]:17967 "EHLO penguin.e-mind.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 18 Sep 2001 01:06:34 -0400 Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 07:06:54 +0200 From: Andrea Arcangeli To: Marcelo Tosatti Cc: Linus Torvalds , Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.10-pre11 Message-ID: <20010918070654.Y698@athlon.random> In-Reply-To: <20010918065423.W698@athlon.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from marcelo@conectiva.com.br on Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 12:33:15AM -0300 X-GnuPG-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.gnupg.asc X-PGP-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.asc Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 12:33:15AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 11:53:10PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > Don't you agree that your code can introduce new stability bugs ? > > > > not anything that can corrupt randomly your hd. > > Sure, the old code did not corrupt hd's randomly, did it? > > Let me redo the question: Don't you think the old stinky and slow code was > reasonably stable ? :) As said in the other email, just check 2.4 l-k reports of this week, last week etc.., I've lots of private reports too. While for everybody 2.2.19 is working fine. Andrea