mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* 2.4.20-pre5 more stable than 2.4.19??? (was e1000/2.4)
@ 2002-08-29 11:14 Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
  2002-08-29 11:18 ` 2.4.20-pre5 more stable than 2.4.19??? David S. Miller
  2002-08-30  5:34 ` 2.4.20-pre5 more stable than 2.4.19??? (was e1000/2.4) Mike Galbraith
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk @ 2002-08-29 11:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Kernel mailing list

hi all

David S. Miller tells me here that '2.4.20-pre5 is tons more stable than 
2.4.19 anyways'

is this correct?

----------  Forwarded Message  ----------

Subject: e1000/2.4
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 03:42:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
To: roy@karlsbakk.net

If you get "a patch" it almost certainly won't build because the e1000
driver in 2.4.20-preX depends upon the NAPI stuff we added to the
2.4.x tree

2.4.20-pre5 is tons more stable than 2.4.19 anyways :-)

-------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk, Datavaktmester
ProntoTV AS - http://www.pronto.tv/
Tel: +47 9801 3356

Computers are like air conditioners.
They stop working when you open Windows.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2002-08-30  5:32 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-08-29 11:14 2.4.20-pre5 more stable than 2.4.19??? (was e1000/2.4) Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-08-29 11:18 ` 2.4.20-pre5 more stable than 2.4.19??? David S. Miller
2002-08-30  5:34 ` 2.4.20-pre5 more stable than 2.4.19??? (was e1000/2.4) Mike Galbraith

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®