On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 17:16 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 21:57:26 +0000 > David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 12:47 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > But I really think we should be eating our own dog food here. > > > > Your employer and mine also care about people who use 64KiB pages... :) > > I don't speak for my employer in any way shape or form. My comments > are my own and do not represent those of my employer. <Insert random > other ways of saying I speak for me alone and not my employer>. Fedora > is done in my spare time. Yeah, sorry -- that was poorly phrased. I didn't mean that we should be pursuing 64KiB pages because we are inappropriately beholden to our employers -- it was more an observation that some poor bugger at some point is going to have to deal with the issue anyway. And since we're already _doing_ it (and mostly, we already _did_ it to get FC6 out the door), and since it's helping us find real bugs on all architectures, maybe we should just keep doing it. I don't recall a single case of a program failing on a 4KiB-page kernel because it was built on a 64KiB-page kernel, although I can certainly imagine how it might happen. Yes, there is the issue of (organised and documented) access to test machines; we need to deal that with whatever the page size, and the test machines need to match the builders. > Besides, my employer is probably more concerned with the fact that > Fedora 9 Alpha (and likely Beta) doesn't even install on their class of > hardware because of Anaconda/HAL refusing to see the disks on Power6 > and LPARs (as well as PS3). Christ, isn't that fixed yet? /me looks... er, did we not even assign the corresponding bug to HAL? Or is there a separate HAL bug other than 431045? -- dwmw2 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
