Re: 2.0.29/ISS (Replacement for 2.0.33)

Keith Rowland (
Thu, 05 Mar 1998 03:10:30 -0700

Trevor Johnson wrote:
> People sure did have problems before--that's why Linux 2.0.1 through
> 2.0.29 were written. :)

:-) Of Course. But you know 2.0.30 and beyond is unchararistically more
unstable and locks up without any known cause.

> -rw-r--r-- 1 56633 Mar 9 1997 test4.gz
> -rw-rw-r-- 1 293692 Apr 8 1997 patch-2.0.30.gz

Bear with me, as I don't do this often. I should apply
patch-2.0-ISS.test4 to a 2.0.29 kernel to get 2.0.29 ISS. Right?

Then apply the teardrop patch, then any others that may seem needed.
Don't I need to know if a patch can be applied to 2.0.29, if it is
labeled for a newer version and may not work right?

If I apply patch-2.0.30.gz to get 2.0.30, I already know 2.0.30 is bad.
Any reason you mentioned patch-2.0.30.gz, which is now called

If patch-2.0.29-ISS. starts locking up, we'll know more data for the
debugging group.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to