Mike Snitzer wrote:
On 4/13/07, Chuck Lever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On 2/2/07, Chuck Lever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Roland Dreier wrote:
>> > > They are mostly from Chuck Level and make preparating for IPv6
>> support
>> > > in the NFS server.
>> > > They are
Mike Snitzer wrote:
On 4/13/07, Chuck Lever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On 2/2/07, Chuck Lever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Roland Dreier wrote:
>> > > They are mostly from Chuck Level and make preparating for IPv6
>> support
>> > > in the NFS server.
>> > > They are
On 4/13/07, Chuck Lever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On 2/2/07, Chuck Lever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Roland Dreier wrote:
>> > > They are mostly from Chuck Level and make preparating for IPv6
>> support
>> > > in the NFS server.
>> > > They are *not* for 2.6.20, but
Mike Snitzer wrote:
On 2/2/07, Chuck Lever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Roland Dreier wrote:
> > They are mostly from Chuck Level and make preparating for IPv6
support
> > in the NFS server.
> > They are *not* for 2.6.20, but should be ok for .21.
>
> Out of curiousity, does this patch
On 2/2/07, Chuck Lever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Roland Dreier wrote:
> > They are mostly from Chuck Level and make preparating for IPv6 support
> > in the NFS server.
> > They are *not* for 2.6.20, but should be ok for .21.
>
> Out of curiousity, does this patch series reduce the delta
On 2/2/07, Chuck Lever [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roland Dreier wrote:
They are mostly from Chuck Level and make preparating for IPv6 support
in the NFS server.
They are *not* for 2.6.20, but should be ok for .21.
Out of curiousity, does this patch series reduce the delta between the
Mike Snitzer wrote:
On 2/2/07, Chuck Lever [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roland Dreier wrote:
They are mostly from Chuck Level and make preparating for IPv6
support
in the NFS server.
They are *not* for 2.6.20, but should be ok for .21.
Out of curiousity, does this patch series reduce
On 4/13/07, Chuck Lever [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Snitzer wrote:
On 2/2/07, Chuck Lever [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roland Dreier wrote:
They are mostly from Chuck Level and make preparating for IPv6
support
in the NFS server.
They are *not* for 2.6.20, but should be ok for .21.
Mike Snitzer wrote:
On 4/13/07, Chuck Lever [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Snitzer wrote:
On 2/2/07, Chuck Lever [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roland Dreier wrote:
They are mostly from Chuck Level and make preparating for IPv6
support
in the NFS server.
They are *not* for 2.6.20, but
Mike Snitzer wrote:
On 4/13/07, Chuck Lever [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Snitzer wrote:
On 2/2/07, Chuck Lever [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roland Dreier wrote:
They are mostly from Chuck Level and make preparating for IPv6
support
in the NFS server.
They are *not* for 2.6.20, but
Roland Dreier wrote:
> They are mostly from Chuck Level and make preparating for IPv6 support
> in the NFS server.
> They are *not* for 2.6.20, but should be ok for .21.
Out of curiousity, does this patch series reduce the delta between the
NFS/RDMA tree and mainline Linux? In other words
On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 01:02:24AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> NFS/RDMA is IMO more than a little bit questionable, and the likely
> userbase is also quite small. I'm not sure its worth a mainline merge
> at this point.
Why do you think so? In my eyes it's actually one of the few useful
On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 01:02:24AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
NFS/RDMA is IMO more than a little bit questionable, and the likely
userbase is also quite small. I'm not sure its worth a mainline merge
at this point.
Why do you think so? In my eyes it's actually one of the few useful
Roland Dreier wrote:
They are mostly from Chuck Level and make preparating for IPv6 support
in the NFS server.
They are *not* for 2.6.20, but should be ok for .21.
Out of curiousity, does this patch series reduce the delta between the
NFS/RDMA tree and mainline Linux? In other words does
14 matches
Mail list logo
