On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Daenyth Blank <daenyth+arch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Slicehost provides me with a .24 kernel. Thus the reason the bump to 2.6.22 seemed acceptable to at least me, but going all the way to .27 will not work at all. -Dan
