From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=DMARC_NONE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RDNS_DYNAMIC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from mail.broadpark.no (217-13-4-9.dd.nextgentel.com [217.13.4.9]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EEA6201D1C7 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 07:23:14 -0600 (CST) Received: from [10.0.0.2] (80-202-0-124.dd.nextgentel.com [80.202.0.124]) by mail.broadpark.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA8517D84 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:19:49 +0100 (MET) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Kernel 2.4.18 patches From: Joachim Blaabjerg To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0.2 Date: 13 Mar 2002 14:18:39 +0100 Message-Id: <1016025519.14473.4.camel@elysium.suxos.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Gentoo Linux developer list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: X-Archives-Salt: 2fb0359b-123a-4670-bd06-afaf32921fd4 X-Archives-Hash: 4d9dce07ee07f18059da9d3e00146e6e 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