From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:36:11 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
Message-ID: <20020906.113611.102227888.davem@redhat.com>
References: <E17nNhM-0003PD-00@w-gerrit2>
	<60449712.1031311608@[10.10.2.3]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: gh@us.ibm.com, hadi@cyberus.ca, tcw@tempest.prismnet.com,
   linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com, niv@us.ibm.com
Return-path: <netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com>
To: Martin.Bligh@us.ibm.com
In-Reply-To: <60449712.1031311608@[10.10.2.3]>
Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

   From: "Martin J. Bligh" <Martin.Bligh@us.ibm.com>
   Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:26:49 -0700
   
   The fact that we're doing something different from everyone else
   and turning up a different set of kernel issues is a good thing, 
   to my mind. You're right, we could use Tux if we wanted to ... but
   that doesn't stop Apache being interesting ;-)

Tux does not obviate Apache from the equation.
See my other emails.