On Sunday, 11 February 2018 23:25 Alan Cox wrote: > On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 11:42:47 -0800 > > Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Feb 11, 2018, at 9:40 AM, Mark D Rustad <mrustad@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> On Feb 11, 2018, at 2:59 AM, Adam Borowski <kilobyte@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >>> Does Debian make it easy to upgrade to a 64-bit kernel if you have a > > >>> 32-bit install? > > >> > > >> Quite easy, yeah. Crossgrading userspace is not for the faint of the > > >> heart, but changing just the kernel is fine. > > > > > > ISTR that iscsi doesn't work when running a 64-bit kernel with a 32-bit > > > userspace. I remember someone offered kernel patches to fix it, but I > > > think they were rejected. I haven't messed with that stuff in many > > > years, so perhaps the userspace side now has accommodation for it. It > > > might be something to check on. > > > > > At the risk of suggesting heresy, should we consider removing x86_32 > > support at some point? > > Probably - although it's still relevant for Quark. I can't think of any > other in-production 32bit only processor at this point. Big core Intel > went 64bit 2006 or so, atoms mostly 2008 or so (with some stragglers that > are 32 or 64 bit depending if it's enabled) until 2011 (Cedartrail) FWIW the Atom E6xx series (Tunnel Creek) is 32bit only and still in production; my employer is using those beasts in several devices - and I'm fighting an uphill battle to have those products ship with a recent kernel (for certain values of recent) > If someone stuck a fork in it just after the next long term kernel > release then by the time that expired it would probably be historical > interest only. > > Does it not depend if there is someone crazy enough to maintain it > however - 68000 is doing fine 8) Cheers Anders -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
