On Saturday 03 July 2004 08:21 am, Dave Jones wrote: > On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 21:17, Marc Deslauriers wrote: > > On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 11:58, Jon Peatfield wrote: > > > Maybe now would be a good time to start thinking about moving (in a > > > few months maybe) to a kernel tree based on 2.4.26/27pre just to > > > reduce the total number of overlapping patches. > > > > This would be a major undertaking. For starters, someone would have to > > backport nptl to work with 2.4.26/27, which would not be an easy task... > > I did actually intend to do a rebase a while ago when 2.4.25 was > current, as it would've meant being able to drop a bunch of patches. > (And back then, I was hoping it would fix the 'fc1 smp crashes randomly' > bug as folks reported 2.4.25 fixed it for them -- this was before the > lowlatency problem was discovered). > I spent 2-3 days working off and on battling rejects, and didn't even > get close to finishing. I think I may have fixed up the rejects in NPTL > and started on execshield. I've no idea if it even would've booted, > there's always the danger of introducing new bugs when you rebase to a > newer release due to interactions with code in other parts of the kernel > which have changed without you realising, or just simple introductions > of typos. > I gave up in the end (and before anyone asks, I don't have the > work-in-progress stuff I did any more). The phrase 'extremely painful' comes to mind ;-) > > The really invasive patches in FC1 are 2.4.22-ac, NPTL, Exec-shield > and the O(1) process scheduler. > The -ac patch could probably be dropped with a rebase (apart from maybe > a handful of fixes). There is no newer NPTL patch (and there isn't > likely to be, as Ingo has enough on his plate). > A newer exec-shield exists, and shouldn't be too hard a merge after > a rebase. The real painful bit is NPTL. > > Thankfully from FC2 onwards, support after EOL should be a lot > easier for you folks due to the small number of patches, and > also do to us constantly tracking upstream anyway. > > > > Fedora are maintaining 2.4.22 for fc1 > > > and we have 2.4.20 for RH73/80/9 etc. > > > > FL will only have to maintain two when fc1 stops being maintained by RH: > > 2.4.20 and 2.4.22. > > One thing I did have planned at one point was to migrate RHL to the FC1 > kernel before end of life. I never managed to nail enough critical bugs > before end of life of RHL9 though, so this never happened. > Todays FC1 kernel is in much better shape, so at some point, you may > want to consider it as an update for RHL9. All the nptl switches > and the like are still present in the kernel spec too, allowing you > to use it for RHL7 updates if desired. (caveat: I've not tried using one > of these kernels -- or even built one, so I've no idea if this will just > work out of the box). > I'll try and dig out a spare box, put 7.3 on it and give it a go...just have to find some time to do it. But ultimately the less that has to be maintained has got to be a good thing. - Si > Dave > > > -- > > fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list -- Simon Weller LPIC-2, BCIP Systems Engineer NZServers LTD http://www.nzservers.com/ U.S. Branch <- To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it. - Scott Granneman, Security Focus -> -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
