From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dr7lj-00036F-Dq for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 09 Jul 2005 05:20:51 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j695JwUY029372; Sat, 9 Jul 2005 05:19:58 GMT Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net (sccrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.202.55]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j695IF2p031426 for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2005 05:18:15 GMT Received: from [192.168.1.4] (pcp0011842295pcs.waldrf01.md.comcast.net[69.251.97.45]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with ESMTP id <2005070905183001100ijcjoe>; Sat, 9 Jul 2005 05:18:30 +0000 Message-ID: <42CF5F1E.4090800@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 01:22:38 -0400 From: Kumba User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on References: <20050706224651.GA19853@kroah.com> <1120765940.30316.62.camel@localhost> <42CF4AEE.1070600@gentoo.org> <20050709044254.GA9611@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20050709044254.GA9611@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 00e0a08e-aa80-463c-a973-e4e066e754b3 X-Archives-Hash: 574271075d4740898583dd831d37bdf5 Greg KH wrote: > > I understand that other arches need to stay at 2.4 for various reasons. > Hopefully those issues will be fixed so that this situation doesn't stay > that way for much longer. You're not the only one hoping they're fixed soon :) > I am supprised that Sparc64 is stuck with 2.4, as the main kernel > developers of that tree work on 2.6 everyday. As for mips, I thought > the recent (few kernel versions ago) merge brought you all up to speed? > > Anything that I can do to help this, please let me know. Yeah, it's a bit surprising really. It depends heavily on the machine, and upon certain options in the machine. I run a Blade 100 with 1 IDE and 1 SCSI drive, and 2.6.7 is the last "good" kernel for me. 2.6.8.1 -> early 2.6.11 apparently had something nasty that buggered up the scsi subsystem to the point where heavy disk activity brought a system to its knees in minutes. I haven't tested anything newer as I usually wait for a grsec release before building a new kernel for my non-mips systems (and they haven't released anything for 2.6.12 yet). The current issue going on, I haven't followed too closely, but it appears to cause various issues on several machines. In one case, a Netra 1450 with 4x CPUs keels over on 2.6.1 and up within several minutes of doing anything on it. squash is going to go back and test all the 2.5.x kernels to try and find the point at which it all started happening. The thread regarding all of this (and has davem participating in) started here: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=gentoo-sparc&m=111967071008611&w=2 As for mips, the only system gentoo-supported that still has a link to 2.4 are the old IP22 (SGI Indy/SGI Indigo2 R4x00) systems. When I run ~2.6.10 on it, I can usually hang the box after a couple hours of building something (like glibc), whereas geoman can run his Indy for days on 2.6.x w/o incident. Likely, there's probably some tricky bugs left that hinge on a specific CPU revision, and I just happen to have the one revision that causes the bug. I just haven't fired the system up and really taken a good look at it. --Kumba -- Gentoo/MIPS Team Lead Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees "Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere." --Elrond -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list