Re: 2.1.44

Richard A. Soderberg (
Wed, 9 Jul 1997 02:05:24 -0700 (PDT)

I'd have to say, without any unusla settings than normal, I booted 2.1.44
without a single lockup, crash, or OOPS. Didn't even notice the fs
corruption for a little while till I rmed some files and checked my disk
space. Nothing special setup, copied a .config from 2.1.44-3... Even
included modules for all the filesystems.. Not a single error. 2.1.43
clean untar, patched with patch-2.1.44.gz. I forgot to install the
modules, so I never tried testing them, and I only booted 2.1.44 once.


On Tue, 8 Jul 1997, Alan Cox wrote:

> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 15:30:41 +0100
> From: Alan Cox <>
> To:,
> Cc:
> Subject: 2.1.44
> 2.1.44pre3 wasnt bad - in fact its been the best for a while. 2.1.44 is
> a bit of a disaster. It doesnt boot, and on the odd combination of settings
> that do boot it scrambles your disk
> The responsible thing to do would surely to be to rename it 2.1.44pre4 before
> it does further needless damage. I've no problem with 2.1.x having odd suprises
> like sometimes eating bits of disks - it is test code, but now we know its
> extremely dangerous moving it from the normal place would be smart.
> Alan