From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 12:17:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: Basic testing shows 2.3.99-pre9-3 bad, pre9-2 good In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rik van Riel Cc: Lawrence Manning , Linux Kernel , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Sun, 21 May 2000, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Sun, 21 May 2000, Lawrence Manning wrote: > > > That's my observation anyway. I did some dd and bonnie tests > > and got abismal results :-( Machine unusable during dd write > > etc. pre9-2 on the other hand is close to being as smooth as, > > say, 2.3.51. What happened? ;) What happened was really that I did a partial integration just to make it easier to synchronize. I wanted to basically have pre9-2 + quintela's patch, but I had too many emails to go through and too many changes of my own in this area, so I made pre9-3 available so that others could help me synchronize. So on't despair, pre9-3 is definitely just a temporary mix of patches, and is lacking the balancing that Quintela did. Linus -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/