From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18475 invoked by uid 1002); 20 Oct 2003 03:06:09 -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 26251 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2003 03:06:09 -0000 From: Luke-Jr Organization: Gentoo Linux To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 03:05:57 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.9 Cc: Donnie Berkholz References: <1066617251.991.5.camel@sfa237013.richmond.edu> In-Reply-To: <1066617251.991.5.camel@sfa237013.richmond.edu> GPG-Public-Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xD53E9583 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="shift_jis" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <200310200306.06406.luke-jr@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Patches and the 2.4->2.6 move X-Archives-Salt: 4b3cd6b2-edc8-4865-97b8-a354afa395b0 X-Archives-Hash: c187f56e156b3792569804010ed581da =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 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 actually= =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 ~2GHz x86. However, if this patch is not x86 is not specific enough to give 2GHz any meaning. A 2GHz AthlonXP is alo= t=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 hours = for=20 me... I'd recommend at least having a local USE flag or variable to enable/ disable it (default depending on how major the fix is) > 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 so= me=20 related IRC channels could find someone interested in writing such? > > Thanks, > Donnie =2D --=20 Luke-Jr Developer, Gentoo Linux http://www.gentoo.org/ =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/k1EbZl/BHdU+lYMRAnFdAJ4ujALMO8sUVOyMSp3AZimOQF6iCwCfSGzd 5iJIil8aFriglB3ZT0YEyPY=3D =3DFXhs =2D----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list