On 17 August 2010 15:08, Paul Fox p...@laptop.org wrote:
would it work better to merge each of the the -stable kernels
in turn? because then you'd probably get the undo of the -stable
change along with the mainline change that supercedes it. but that
might not work, and it would be a lot of
daniel wrote:
On 17 August 2010 15:08, Paul Fox p...@laptop.org wrote:
would it work better to merge each of the the -stable kernels
in turn? because then you'd probably get the undo of the -stable
change along with the mainline change that supercedes it. but that
might not work,
On 17 August 2010 15:26, Paul Fox p...@laptop.org wrote:
i probably don't understand the problem well enough. i was
thinking that merging in the rest of the -stable kernels (and
there would be a lot of them, from 2.6.31.7 to 2.6.34.N) would
get you closer, in a more automated way. the more i
Regarding *running* with 2.6.34 (as opposed to *building* with it):
A month ago Quozl released a 2.6.34-rc5 kernel for thin wireless
testing. I ran my XO-1.5 for a week with that kernel, doing all the
normal things I do with an XO - and was satisfied. The only drawback
that I remember was some
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 07:32:30PM -0500, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
Regarding *running* with 2.6.34 (as opposed to *building* with it):
A month ago Quozl released a 2.6.34-rc5 kernel for thin wireless
testing. I ran my XO-1.5 for a week with that kernel, doing all the
normal things I do with an
