On 01/08/2011 11:37 AM, Jon Masters wrote: > On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 11:14 +0000, Andy Green wrote: >> On 01/08/11 11:10, Somebody in the thread at some point said: >>> On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 10:30 +0000, Andy Green wrote: >>>> On 01/08/11 09:54, Somebody in the thread at some point said: >>>>> On 01/08/2011 02:49 AM, Chris Tyler wrote: >>> >>>>> I would like to offer a counter-proposal - no package is accepted into >>>>> Fedora (ARM?) until it stops generating misalignment warnings. That way >>>> >>>> I think your proposal is a bad idea. >>> >>> FWIW I think you're talking at cross-purposes. There's no reason there >>> can't be a policy favoring stuff that doesn't generate miss-alignment >>> warnings (whether outright denial, or just some kind of part of package >>> reviews, and no reason this isn't a generic Fedora problem rather than >>> being ARM specific), have software like abrt pick it up, and still do a >>> fixup+warn setting in the kernel. You won't get silent breakage, and >>> you'll send a message that software needs to be fixed. >> >> As a "counter proposal" as it was introduced, instead of Chris' scheme, >> it's a bad idea. > > Agreed. It should be "in addition", not a counter proposal. See my argument for 1 vs 3. It's easy enough for the user to change this themselves, but defaults should be providing more pressure for fixing things, not less compare to the current default (0). >> Having a policy that alignment faults should be avoided itself is fine, >> but it is not a replacement for the good assertive action made by >> changing the runtime policy. In fact I don't think we get to this point >> with so few fixups unless that was already the general policy not just >> here but in the upstreams. > > I think that might be more luck than intention. A lot of stuff is being > developed on three main architectures that take care of miss-alignment. Maybe so, but that shouldn't be an excuse for not fixing this sort of thing, especially since ARM looks set to become much more popular as a desktop and server platform. >> When the initscripts set the runtime action to be fixup + log, those >> faults will actually become more visible to everyone and help detection >> and removal of faults overall. > > This is true. Warnings will motivate fixing stuff. Still, doesn't hurt > to have some kind of "policy" to promote this. I'm only really concerned > because none of the primary Fedora arches are bitten by this, so it's > easy for this to continue slipping under the radar. Agreed - and such a policy would probably benefit from not having the issue silently fixed. Silently fixing the issue at a performance penalty as a policy, taken to it's final logical conclusion, means that you might just as well just tell the user to run it in a qemu VM on x86. Gordan _______________________________________________ arm mailing list arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
