Re: [PATCH 00/34] Memory management performance backports for -stable V2

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Mike Galbraith <efault@xxxxxx> wrote:
> FWIW, I'm all for performance backports.  They do have a downside though
> (other than the risk of bugs slipping in, or triggering latent bugs).
>
> When the next enterprise kernel is built, marketeers ask for numbers to
> make potential customers drool over, and you _can't produce any_ because
> you wedged all the spiffy performance stuff into the crusty old kernel.
>
Well do your job please.

	Suse 11 SP1 kernel panic on HP hardware
	https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/24/136

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]