From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 07:19:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 07:19:44 -0400 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:15523 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 07:19:43 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 04:18:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20020829.041814.86991690.davem@redhat.com> To: roy@karlsbakk.net Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.4.20-pre5 more stable than 2.4.19??? From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <200208291314.11638.roy@karlsbakk.net> References: <200208291314.11638.roy@karlsbakk.net> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:14:11 +0200 David S. Miller tells me here that '2.4.20-pre5 is tons more stable than 2.4.19 anyways' is this correct? If you're using the bonding driver, for one this. It OOPS's in 2.4.19 There are other critical fixes in 2.4.20-preX as well. Why is this news? Stop the presses! 2.4.20-preX has more fixes than 2.4.19, how astonishing!