From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23799 invoked by uid 1002); 20 Oct 2003 03:18:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 5386 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2003 03:18:27 -0000 From: Donnie Berkholz To: Luke-Jr Cc: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <200310200306.06406.luke-jr@gentoo.org> References: <1066617251.991.5.camel@sfa237013.richmond.edu> <200310200306.06406.luke-jr@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-IgLn+uMa2TF54Se2Onfn" Message-Id: <1066619883.5592.12.camel@sfa237013.richmond.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:18:03 -0400 X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-39.3, required 5, EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION, IN_REP_TO, PGP_SIGNATURE_2, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, QUOTE_TWICE_1, REFERENCES, REPLY_WITH_QUOTES, USER_AGENT_XIMIAN) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Patches and the 2.4->2.6 move X-Archives-Salt: b513152b-d20f-4c58-bf69-2df734f60f8f X-Archives-Hash: 9a9f0894e3fcef1eba150df20ee3269f --=-IgLn+uMa2TF54Se2Onfn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 2003-10-19 at 23:05, Luke-Jr wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 >=20 > On Monday 20 October 2003 02:34 am, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > I have a patch that fixes SSE problems on 2.4 kernels. However, on 2.6 > > kernels it breaks OpenGL (applications segfault). > Shouldn't this be fixed in the kernel, then? What exactly does it actuall= y=20 > fix? > > > > Currently I'm applying this patch if /usr/src/linux is linked to a 2.4 > > kernel at compile-time. > > > > This means that if a user emerges xfree when linked to a 2.4 kernel, > > that user will need to remerge xfree after moving to 2.6 kernels. This > > takes about 40 minutes on a =E2=80=BE2GHz x86. However, if this patch i= s not > x86 is not specific enough to give 2GHz any meaning. A 2GHz AthlonXP is a= lot=20 > faster than an (early) 2GHz Pentium 4. > > applied, the bug will continue to exist for all Gentoo users on 2.4 > > kernels. > > > > My request to you is: > > 1) Is this acceptable? > 40 minutes on any kind of 2GHz system would probably mean at least 2 hour= s for=20 > me... I'd recommend at least having a local USE flag or variable to enabl= e/ > disable it (default depending on how major the fix is) A USE flag to disable fixing a bug? 'USE=3D"keep-sse-bugs" emerge xfree' seems a little odd to me. > > 2) If not, what is a better solution? Dropping the patch entirely? Note > > that I don't know Mesa/programming well enough to write a patch > > compatible for both 2.4 and 2.6 kernels. > If a version compatible with both kernels could exist, perhaps asking in = some=20 > related IRC channels could find someone interested in writing such? I already tried. Response consisted of things similar to "Wait until 2.6 is official, then we will provide a fix for it. Right now we have more important, relevant things to concentrate on." Thanks, Donnie --=-IgLn+uMa2TF54Se2Onfn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA/k1PrXVaO67S1rtsRAoV0AJ9kW69Nldcp9adLiUnlqxwOeL7Q6ACeLoXF bVTD7mKWIz36LTMuSjAgDyk= =Pt4T -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-IgLn+uMa2TF54Se2Onfn--