From: Trond Myklebust Subject: RE: linux 2.4.20 oops Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 19:21:42 +0200 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <16046.46246.873977.442835@charged.uio.no> References: <6440EA1A6AA1D5118C6900902745938E07D5559A@black.eng.netapp.com> Reply-To: trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Lever, Charles" , NFS maillist Return-path: Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.130.16]) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 19AYoB-0007ni-00 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:22:23 -0700 To: Marcelo Tosatti In-Reply-To: <6440EA1A6AA1D5118C6900902745938E07D5559A@black.eng.netapp.com> Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: >>>>> " " == Charles Lever writes: > i built 2.4.21-rc1 from 2.4.20.tar.bz2 and the rc1 upgrade > patch, and its not in my version of rc1. Hmmm... strange. AFAICS there are no NFS or RPC changes whatsoever in the rc1 patch on ftp.kernel.org. As I said, all the changes (including Ulrich Weigand's patch) appear to still be in the bitkeeper repository (see for instance the kernel source browser on http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.4). Marcelo, is this perhaps a problem with an incorrect generation of the 'official' 2.4.21-rc1 patch? Cheers, Trond ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs