On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:11:37 -0400 Lee Revell <rlrevell@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2004-07-30 at 09:31, Florian Schmidt wrote: > > Hi, > > > > can someone here maybe shed some light on the naming conventions of > > Ingos volountary preemption patches? What's the difference between > > Ix, Jx and Mx [where x is a positiove integer number]? > > A change in the letter represents a major change to the patch, and the > numbers represent bugfixes within an iteration. Ingo issues a patch, > people report any problems or latency issues, and based on this > feedback he posts a new one. > > For example the -L series moves all hardirq processing to the irqd > thread. I had to hack the kernel source to make the soundcard and RTC > interrupts 'direct'. In the -M series this can all be done via /proc. > > There is not really any point in using anything but the latest > version, because the patches are improving every day. > > Lee Ah, ok.. i thought they were different subsets of the functionality. Sure, makes sense.. I use 2.6.8-rc2-M5 now and it works quite nicely.. The M5 patch against mm1 didn't really work. I got a warning at compile time and my mouse didn't work upon bootup [ps/2].. Hmm, i just see i get this warning with M5 applied to 2.6.8-rc2 directly, too: CC init/main.o init/main.c: In function `init': init/main.c:672: warning: implicit declaration of function `spawn_irq_threads' Is this serious? -- Palimm Palimm! http://affenbande.org/~tapas/
