Hey, dude-
> The advice is appreciated, but why is it "better"?
>
> What I need is stability. I now have 5.2-STABLE with the "PCI bus number
> resource tracking" and "secondary PCI root segment detection" patches
> retrieved from CVS. These patches were applied to CVS not long after
> tagging 5.2
Robbert Kouprie [robb...@exx.nl] wrote:
>
> The advice is appreciated, but why is it "better"?
>
> What I need is stability. I now have 5.2-STABLE with the "PCI bus number
> resource tracking" and "secondary PCI root segment detection" patches
> retrieved from CVS. These patches were applied to C
On 14-12-2012 14:12, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
> Robbert Kouprie [robb...@exx.nl] wrote:
>> Found it. Has to do with detection of secondary PCI root segments.
>>
> Nick is right. Run -current. It is better than 5.2 in many respects.
>
The advice is appreciated, but why is it "better"?
What I need is
Robbert Kouprie [robb...@exx.nl] wrote:
> Found it. Has to do with detection of secondary PCI root segments.
>
Nick is right. Run -current. It is better than 5.2 in many respects.
Found it. Has to do with detection of secondary PCI root segments.
Thanks for your hints,
Robbert
On 12-12-2012 15:37, Robbert Kouprie wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm having some trouble with a Dell PowerEdge R910 with 4 Intel Pro/1000
> QP (quad) cards.
On 12/12/2012 02:37 PM, Robbert Kouprie wrote:
...
> As this is going to be a production system, I would prefer to run STABLE
> + this specific fix.
...
You will, I think, be better off running -current (which is supported)
than a Frankenstein monster with an inaccurate name (which is not
supporte
