kdb
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Announce: kdb v1.9 is available for kernel 2.4.16

To: Keith Owens <kaos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Announce: kdb v1.9 is available for kernel 2.4.16
From: Juan Quintela <quintela@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 04 Dec 2001 00:54:24 +0100
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxx>, kdb@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <16173.1007392255@ocs3.intra.ocs.com.au>
References: <16173.1007392255@ocs3.intra.ocs.com.au>
Sender: owner-kdb@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1
>>>>> "keith" == Keith Owens <kaos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

keith> On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 15:55:39 +0100, 
keith> Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 07:40:12PM +1100, Keith Owens wrote:
>>> Because every architecture except i386 differes from the base kernel.
>>> IA64 has its own large patch set that has to be applied to the main
>>> kernel before kdb can be applied.  Sparc uses the vger kernel tree.
>>> The -ac trees are different again.
>> 
>> Umm, the ia64 kdb patch fails in exact two places when applied against
>> a stock 2.4.16 kernel..  vger usually is very near to the mainline, and
>> -ac is completly gone.

keith> That is true now, but only since ia64 rolled a lot of changes into
keith> 2.4.16.  Before 2.4.16, ia64 was significantly different, before 2.4.13
keith> ac was a nightmare.  IMHO having a core kdb patch with arch specific
keith> add ons will actually make it easier to support multiple architectures,
keith> you don't have to reconcile the core changes from two different patches
keith> because there is now only one copy.  By definition, the arch add ons
keith> are completely independent so there are no reconciliation problems.

core patches + different arch patches sounds good to me.

Later, Juan.


-- 
In theory, practice and theory are the same, but in practice they 
are different -- Larry McVoy

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>