Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 31st Mar 2009 15:47 UTC, submitted by Rahul
Permalink for comment 356112
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-02-15
2)2.6.30 is planned for summer (?) so it is not here yet
3) no it is not the same with backporting (there are some problems)
No, 2.6.30 is not released yet so that's why the fixes were backported. And what is the problem with backporting a patch to an earlier kernel? I'd love to hear your explanation. The patch is essentially exactly the same, the difference is just that the backport patch compiles fine against an older kernel.
4) read Linus comment about ext4 about at lkml after 2.6.29 release.
From what I understood Linus was mostly complaining about the default settings for ext4 which could cause dataloss. However, you only need to specify one single option when mounting ext4 and the problem goes away.