Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:12:46 +0000 (GMT)
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
To: Chris Rankin <rankincj@yahoo.com>
cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.18-stable release plans?
In-Reply-To: <964414.64865.qm@web52908.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701241607160.17843@blonde.wat.veritas.com>
References: <964414.64865.qm@web52908.mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 843
Lines: 18

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Chris Rankin wrote:
> 
> I suppose what I'm *really* asking is what the basis is for assuming that this *isn't* a kernel
> bug and can therefore be safely ignored, seeing as the oops is real, the hardware is fine and the
> kernel is untainted? That seems to cover the bases from where I'm sitting.

All I'm claiming is that it's no more a reason to avoid 2.6.19*
than to avoid any other release (the kernels before 2.6.7 happened
to have no such check, but that doesn't imply they were any safer).

It may indeed be due to a kernel bug, but I can't tell you where: sorry.

Hugh
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/