cvs commit: src/sys/compat/linux linux_mib.c linux_mib.h
linux_misc.c
Alexander Leidinger
netchild at FreeBSD.org
Thu Jan 11 10:08:33 UTC 2007
Quoting Divacky Roman <xdivac02 at stud.fit.vutbr.cz> (from Thu, 11 Jan
2007 09:50:23 +0100):
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 08:53:48AM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
>> Quoting Jeremie Le Hen <jeremie at le-hen.org> (from Wed, 10 Jan 2007
>> 23:58:20 +0100):
>>
>> [moving to current@]
>>
>> >Hi Alexander,
>>
>> >Sorry if this has been already discussed in the past, I've certainly
>> >missed the thread.
>> >
>> >Is there any strong reason to not enable 2.6.x emulation by default
>> >in the future RELENG_7 ?
>>
>> We have FC4 in the linux base port. Fedora Legacy is abandoning it, so
>> no security updates anymore. FC5 and later require a 2.6 kernel, they
>> don't run with a 2.4 kernel. So we need the 2.6 emulation rather
>> sooner than later.
>
> this raises an issue about updating the FC4 to FC5 if RELENG_[56] is
Yes. That's a major issue.
> not able to use it at all. do we plan to ever MFC the 2.6 stuff?
> I dont think its a good idea (its a major change) but then - what
> is the policy on updating the linux base port? when the 7.x is widespread
> enough?
A while ago I thought a little bit about it and then I quickly stopped
thinking about it. I will start again to think about it when I see FC4
running with 2.6 on all supported platforms. Based upon this I
coordinate with Boris and portmgr to come to a final conclusion.
>> So currently the strong reason to not enable it by default is: major
>> bugs, lack of amd64 support and no widespread testing.
>
> widespread testing cannot be achieved without turning it on by default
I was talking about the default on 7.0-RELEASE, not about the default
in 7-current.
>> When we fixed the showstopper bug with acroread and don't identify
>> another major bug, I will ask for testing 2.6 on -current to identify
>> the easy to find bugs. After a week or two I will change the default
>> emulation to 2.6 in -current, except we have some showstopper
>> problems. At this point I also hope to have the code for amd64 in the
>> tree.
>
> sounds like a plan to me :) but I dont really think we have to wait for
> amd64. The part we need to test is almost 100% MI. The MD parts are setting
> up GDT which accounts for a few lines of code (note that most of the
> new futexes
> are MI code). I'd prefer testing only on i386 over no testing at all.
Let's wait until the 1-2 weeks passed after I requested tests with 2.6
on current at . Maybe we have amd64 synced by then. If not we can still
talk about it.
Bye,
Alexander.
--
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
Kill your parents.
-- Jerry Rubin
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list