Re: Stability of 2.6.17-rc3?

[Jan Engelhardt]

>> >Though, Joshua, 2.6.17-rc3 seems to be a rock-solid release. It's safe
>> > enough to diff against and boot, if that's what you want to do.
>>
>> It did not eat the virtual machine so its chances are good. However, I wait
>> for 2.6.17 because of the few XFS fixes gone in since then.
>
>I run a 1TB XFS filesystem on a RAID5 with no ill-effects. I've never 
>experienced data-loss in 2.6, mostly due to conservative options (no 4k 
>stacks, no regparm, XFS only).
>
Oh I must have missed -rc2, in which

Nathan Scott:
      [XFS] Fix superblock validation regression for the zero imaxpct case. 
      [XFS] Fix a writepage regression where we accidentally stopped 
honouring
      [XFS] Fix utime(2) in the case that no times parameter was passed in.
      [XFS] Fix a problem in aligning inode allocations to stripe unit

got in.


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