| 1 |
On Wed, 2002-02-27 at 21:14, Bruce A. Locke wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Yeah, the preempt patch seems to have some rather nasty rejects against |
| 4 |
> -aa's rather large (?!?!) patch set. I myself am either sticking |
| 5 |
> 2.4.17-r4 or building my own because I depend on preempt and refuse to |
| 6 |
> use any kernel for my workstation without it. And the fact -aa's patch |
| 7 |
> is huge and tested by a smaller audience then even -ac's patch set |
| 8 |
> doesn't sit well with me either. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Anyone know if some kind soul is maintaining a preempt + tested XFS |
| 11 |
> patch? With the dozens of different kernel trees these days someone has |
| 12 |
> to be doing something like that :) |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Michael Cohen (mjc) and Shawn (shawnX) in #kernelnewbies are working on |
| 15 |
this as we speak. -aa doesn't really give us any viable options for |
| 16 |
good desktop performance, so we're moving to an -ac kernel augmented |
| 17 |
with XFS and -preempt (as an option for desktops). So far, we have |
| 18 |
everything but -preempt working. It applies cleanly but does not |
| 19 |
actually do anything. Michael Cohen is working on a fix, and when he |
| 20 |
has one I'll roll out a new kernel. -ac also includes -rmap which is a |
| 21 |
great performance enhancer for the desktop. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Best Regards, |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Daniel Robbins <drobbins@g.o> |
| 27 |
Chief Architect/President http://www.gentoo.org |
| 28 |
Gentoo Technologies, Inc. |
Archives