From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:07:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:07:57 -0400 Received: from [209.194.14.2] ([209.194.14.2]:21767 "EHLO ecity.ecity.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:07:56 -0400 Message-ID: <2a1a01c268ad$0d35b650$250bc2d1@pent> From: "Jeff Willis" To: References: <200209290716.g8T7GNwf000562@darkstar.example.net> <20020929091229.GA1014@suse.de> <1033311400.13001.5.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> <20020929153817.GC1014@suse.de> Subject: Re: v2.6 vs v3.0 Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:13:15 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > Most of my boxes won't even run a 2.5 tree yet. I'm sure its hardly > > unique. Middle of November we may begin to find out how solid the core > > code actually is, as drivers get fixed up and also in the other > > direction as we eliminate numerous crashes caused by "fixed in 2.4" bugs You're right, it's not unique. Will they run 2.4? I've got about a dozen boxes that have had over a year uptime with 2.0 or 2.2, but won't boot with the 2.4 or the recent 2.5 I tried. > Well why don't they run with 2.5? Good question. With the 2.4 kernels I've tried zImages worked fine but bzImages wouldn't boot. Unfortunately, with the options I need, the kernel won't fit in a zImage. The servers were all originally AMI motherboards, but after replacing a few due to failures, there's a few Abit, Tyans and Gigabyte replacements. The Gigabyte (model GA-8IRXP, I think) will boot bzImages, but I hate to replace motherboards that have worked fine for years just to boot the new 2.6/3.0.