Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:53:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:53:38 -0400 Received: from perninha.conectiva.com.br ([200.250.58.156]:7699 "HELO perninha.conectiva.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:53:37 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:53:17 -0300 (BRT) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: riel@duckman.distro.conectiva To: Adam McKenna Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: The latest -ac patch to the stable Linux kernels In-Reply-To: <20020411203819.GA32605@flounder.net> Message-ID: X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Adam McKenna wrote: > On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:47:47PM -0700, David Lang wrote: > > all the -ac kernels need to be treated as -pre > > > > if you watch in detail you can pick ones that are more likly to be stable > > then others, but some of them will be intentionally cutting edge. > > I was under the impression that the -ac line has a bunch of VM fixes > that haven't been merged into the main tree yet, which should make it > better under high loads than the standard kernel. > > Is this no longer the case? It is, except that the changes currently in -ac are more suitable to be merged into 2.5 first ;) regards, Rik -- Will hack the VM for food. http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ - 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/