Am 30.07.2011 04:16, schrieb Dave Jones:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 01:16:43AM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
i have running 2.6.40-4.fc15.x86_64 #1 SMP in my testing-virtual-machine
since
some minutes, boot looked fine, after a minute a got a btrfs-stack-trace
hope this helps (no i
On 07/30/2011 12:52 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.07.2011 04:29, schrieb Genes MailLists:
wasn't there some kind of issue in vm's ?
Maybe I'm not remembering correctly
no - performance sucks if the VM is stored on a BTRFS formatted disk
this is a completly other problem and it must not
On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 13:53 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=256138
does this mean that F15 will get a rebased 2.6.40 sooner or
later in stable repos to avoid troubles with the new versioning
and will not stuck at 2.6.38 the whole life cycle?
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=256138
does this mean that F15 will get a rebased 2.6.40 sooner or
later in stable repos to avoid troubles with the new versioning
and will not stuck at 2.6.38 the whole life cycle?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
* Reindl Harald [29/07/2011 15:58] :
does this mean that F15 will get a rebased 2.6.40 sooner or
later in stable repos to avoid troubles with the new versioning
and will not stuck at 2.6.38 the whole life cycle?
Yes.
https://plus.google.com/106327083461132854143/posts/SbnL3KaVRtM
Emmanuel
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=256138
does this mean that F15 will get a rebased 2.6.40 sooner or
later in stable repos to avoid troubles with the new versioning
and will not stuck at 2.6.38 the
Am 29.07.2011 19:39, schrieb Josh Boyer:
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=256138
does this mean that F15 will get a rebased 2.6.40 sooner or
later in stable repos to avoid troubles with the new
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 01:16:43AM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
i have running 2.6.40-4.fc15.x86_64 #1 SMP in my testing-virtual-machine
since
some minutes, boot looked fine, after a minute a got a btrfs-stack-trace
hope this helps (no i do not tend use btrfs in production *gg*)
hmm,
On 07/29/2011 10:16 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 01:16:43AM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
i have running 2.6.40-4.fc15.x86_64 #1 SMP in my testing-virtual-machine
since
some minutes, boot looked fine, after a minute a got a btrfs-stack-trace
hope this helps (no i
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:29:58PM -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
wasn't there some kind of issue in vm's ? Maybe I'm not remembering
correctly.
too vague to comment. there are always 'issues in vm's :)
Dave - how is the 2.6.40 code different or not from 3.0.0-2 ?
pretty much the same
On 07/29/2011 10:41 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:29:58PM -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
wasn't there some kind of issue in vm's ? Maybe I'm not remembering
correctly.
too vague to comment. there are always 'issues in vm's :)
Ha ha .. actually I have a feeling
11 matches
Mail list logo