From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 14:14:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 14:14:09 -0400 Received: from pc1-cwma1-5-cust51.swa.cable.ntl.com ([80.5.120.51]:58612 "EHLO irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 14:14:09 -0400 Subject: Re: v2.6 vs v3.0 From: Alan Cox To: Linus Torvalds Cc: james , Ingo Molnar , Jeff Garzik , Larry Kessler , linux-kernel mailing list , "Andrew V. Savochkin" , Rusty Russell , Richard J Moore In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-10) Date: 29 Sep 2002 19:24:26 +0100 Message-Id: <1033323866.13762.1.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2002-09-29 at 18:42, Linus Torvalds wrote: > I can say that the IDE code is the same code that is in 2.4.x, so if > you're comfortable with 2.4.x wrt IDE, then you should be comfy with > 2.5.x too. *NO* The IDE code is the experimental code in 2.4-ac. It is _NOT_ the IDE code in 2.4 and its a lot less tested. I don't think it has any corruption bugs but it is most definitely not the base 2.4 code and has plenty of non corruption bugs (PCMCIA hang, taskfile write hang, irq blocking performance problems) I use the 2.4-ac version of that code for day to day work. Thats about as good a guarantee as I can give. Alan