On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 05:27, Thomas Bächler <thomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Allan McRae schrieb: >> >> Hmmm... I thought about bumping this to 2.6.18 this time round (based on >> nothing better that when good kernel headers became available) but decided >> not to as 2.6.16 is still widely used given it had a backport branch open >> for a long time (and maybe still does?). > > 2.6.27 will also be maintained for a few years now (no reference, I read > this on lkml in a comment). > > I think among the Arch userbase, virtually nobody uses anything older than > 2.6.27. We always announce to be "bleeding-edge", so IMO there should be no > problem in supporting newer kernels only. > >> I guess what I think the decision comes down to is: Are the speed gains >> from this actually noticeable? I'm skeptical but there are a fair number of >> workarounds removed doing that so maybe they are. > > The resulting code will probably be cleaner. I am always in favour of > dropping legacy support. > > To everyone reading this: Do you use an exceptionally old kernel (say, older > than 2.6.27) on Arch and why? Or do you know anyone who does? > > Shared hosting sites use kernels as old as .24 iirc.
