[gentoo-dev] Kernel 2.4.18 patches

[gentoo-dev] Kernel 2.4.18 patches

[Andreas Waschbuesch]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi *,

I just liked to ask, whether there will be those mr-fancy-pants preempt and 
lockbreak patches from rml back in gentoo's actual kernel or not. I'd like to 
switch from 2.4.17-r5 and will stick with vanilla + BOTH patches, if it's 
clear that they won't be included in the nearer future - which would be quite 
sad - by the way. Any plan?

Thanks in advance - Urs Andrew

- -- 
Andreas Waschbuesch, GAUniversity KG MA FNZ FK01
eMail: awaschb@gwdg.de

I think we're in trouble.
		-- Han Solo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8jyoG2s5UCjOaQbYRAnxJAJ9vCwqBw5awwdBg4JfOpXOXeHDhYwCeP5HC
9rBfwZvXzGuplXUtiAOZJ94=
=ZVee
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Kernel 2.4.18 patches

[K.L. Davis]

I can not speak for the gentoo project, but it would be silly to not include the rml patches (although I don't think of them as "fancy pants")... The rml preempt patch has been merged into the official Linux kernel anyway and thus will be part of *all* Linux distros in the not too distant future...

Till then, you can always dl and apply the current patch yourself?

On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 11:29:26 +0100
Andreas Waschbuesch <awaschb@gwdg.de> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Hi *,
> 
> I just liked to ask, whether there will be those mr-fancy-pants preempt and 
> lockbreak patches from rml back in gentoo's actual kernel or not. I'd like to 
> switch from 2.4.17-r5 and will stick with vanilla + BOTH patches, if it's 
> clear that they won't be included in the nearer future - which would be quite 
> sad - by the way. Any plan?
> 
> Thanks in advance - Urs Andrew
> 
> - -- 
> Andreas Waschbuesch, GAUniversity KG MA FNZ FK01
> eMail: awaschb@gwdg.de
> 
> I think we're in trouble.
> 		-- Han Solo
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
> 
> iD8DBQE8jyoG2s5UCjOaQbYRAnxJAJ9vCwqBw5awwdBg4JfOpXOXeHDhYwCeP5HC
> 9rBfwZvXzGuplXUtiAOZJ94=
> =ZVee
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
> 

Re: [gentoo-dev] Kernel 2.4.18 patches

[Andreas Waschbuesch]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

electrogramma tua profluit verbis:
> [...]
>
> Till then, you can always dl and apply the current patch yourself?

Not with the gentoo-version of 2.4.18 ... That's why I asked. I'll have to 
use vanilla from kernel.org. Otherwise I'd stumble over some hunks while 
patching. 

Concerning "fancy pants" - I like them as I do like the rml patches because 
both enhance "response" ... in quite different ways - I agree :-)

Greets - Andrew

- -- 
Andreas Waschbuesch, GAUniversity KG MA FNZ FK01
eMail: awaschb@gwdg.de

WE'LL LOOK INTO IT:
	By the time the wheels make a full turn, we
	assume you will have forgotten about it,too.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8j0eu2s5UCjOaQbYRAm78AKCS9EM/oQRFUHuKEpq+bO6zDV9JeACfXW7x
cLDiNtvwarDQ3PRwTG/kYfY=
=7yLd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Kernel 2.4.18 patches

[Joachim Blaabjerg]

On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 11:29, Andreas Waschbuesch wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Hi *,
> 
> I just liked to ask, whether there will be those mr-fancy-pants preempt and 
> lockbreak patches from rml back in gentoo's actual kernel or not. I'd like to 
> switch from 2.4.17-r5 and will stick with vanilla + BOTH patches, if it's 
> clear that they won't be included in the nearer future - which would be quite 
> sad - by the way. Any plan?

Just a thought conserning a potential new Gentoo kernel patch... It
seems rmap and lock-break collides a couple of places. Lock-break was
written for -aa, and the result of the failed hunks is that some of the
long locks in the VM aren't "broken". It's no big deal, but it does
theoretically increase the max. response time. Any bright ideas, except
mailing RML and wait? 

-- 
Joachim Blaabjerg
styx@SuxOS.org
www.SuxOS.org