Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:08:20 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <netchild@FreeBSD.org> To: Divacky Roman <xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> Cc: Jeremie Le Hen <jeremie@le-hen.org>, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/compat/linux linux_mib.c linux_mib.h linux_misc.c Message-ID: <20070111110820.x50hz40kgkkok480@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <20070111085023.GA85565@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> References: <200612311239.kBVCdABj058437@repoman.freebsd.org> <20070110225820.GG2616@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <20070111085348.1d9g21cgkc0ss04g@webmail.leidinger.net> <20070111085023.GA85565@stud.fit.vutbr.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Divacky Roman <xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> (from Thu, 11 Jan =20 2007 09:50:23 +0100): > On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 08:53:48AM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote: >> Quoting Jeremie Le Hen <jeremie@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 =20 thinking about it. I will start again to think about it when I see FC4 =20 running with 2.6 on all supported platforms. Based upon this I =20 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 =20 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 settin= g > up GDT which accounts for a few lines of code (note that most of the =20 > 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 =20 on current@. Maybe we have amd64 synced by then. If not we can still =20 talk about it. Bye, Alexander. --=20 http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137 Kill your parents. =09=09-- Jerry Rubin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070111110820.x50hz40kgkkok480>