XFS - kernel 2.4.4 patch?

[Steve Hayashi]

I went on SGI's ftp site, but I couldn't find a patch for kernel 2.4.4 to
enable XFS. Does someone have a patch for this, or should I just bite the
bullet and either downgrade to 2.4.3 or upgrade to 2.4.5. ?

-Steve

[Marcel Pommer]

Post by Steve Hayashi
I went on SGI's ftp site, but I couldn't find a patch for kernel 2.4.4 to
enable XFS. Does someone have a patch for this, or should I just bite the
bullet and either downgrade to 2.4.3 or upgrade to 2.4.5. ?
-Steve

upgrading to the latest kernel version isn't like biting the bullet to me :-)
(especially when dealing with lfs)

[Steve Hayashi]

I thought I read somewhere in this list that the 2.4.5 kernel wasn't
stable. At least, if it IS, then why doesn't the nightly CVS build use
it?

-Steve

Post by Marcel Pommer

Post by Steve Hayashi
I went on SGI's ftp site, but I couldn't find a patch for kernel 2.4.4 to
enable XFS. Does someone have a patch for this, or should I just bite the
bullet and either downgrade to 2.4.3 or upgrade to 2.4.5. ?
-Steve

upgrading to the latest kernel version isn't like biting the bullet to me :-)
(especially when dealing with lfs)
--
Marcel Pommer techn. Leiter renzel.net
VKF Renzel GmbH - renzel.net
Im Geer 15 D-46419 Isselburg
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
mpi at renzel.net http://renzel.net
--
Unsubscribe: send email to lfs-apps-request at linuxfromscratch.org
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message

[J. E. Garrott Sr]

Post by Steve Hayashi
I thought I read somewhere in this list that the 2.4.5 kernel wasn't
stable. At least, if it IS, then why doesn't the nightly CVS build use
it?
-Steve

SNIP

All 2.4.X kernels are considered stable.

2.5.X kernels (or 2.3.X kernels) are unstable.

Standard for much software. If the second
number is even, it's stable, if odd it's unstable.

Wish all software used this convention.

John

[mike]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 07:45:18 -0700, J. E. Garrott Sr said

Post by J. E. Garrott Sr
All 2.4.X kernels are considered stable.

2.4.x is considered stable? Maybe in x86 world...

2.4.0 -> builds on sparc, but unbootable for SS10/SS20
2.4.1 -> builds on sparc, you can boot it on SS10/20 by moving your dimms
around (and losing some memory for mysterious reasons)
2.4.2-2.4.5 -> won't even build on sparc out of the tarball, need patching
every time

[Gerard Beekmans]

Post by Steve Hayashi
I thought I read somewhere in this list that the 2.4.5 kernel wasn't
stable. At least, if it IS, then why doesn't the nightly CVS build use
it?

For the CVS version of the book to use a 2.4.5 kernel, it requires me or
one of the other editors to update the book, test it, etc. We just
haven't gotten around it yet. There are a lot of packages pending to be
updated in the book, we'll get to it soon.

[Steve Hayashi]

Post by J. E. Garrott Sr
All 2.4.X kernels are considered stable.
2.5.X kernels (or 2.3.X kernels) are unstable.
Standard for much software. If the second
number is even, it's stable, if odd it's unstable.
Wish all software used this convention.
John

I shouldn't say unstable... But I could have sworn I heard someone mention
on this list (or lfs-discuss) that they couldn't compile (or that they had
trouble with) the latest kernel version.

-Steve

[Jesse Tie Ten Quee]

Yo,

Post by Steve Hayashi
I shouldn't say unstable... But I could have sworn I heard someone mention
on this list (or lfs-discuss) that they couldn't compile (or that they had
trouble with) the latest kernel version.

It is "unstable" compare to previous 2.4.x releases, wayyyyyyy to many
VM issues, they have fixed this in the .6-pre releases thou, iirc.