On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 09:33:10AM -0400, Ravi Pratap wrote: > > >> Thanks so much! Will this go into 2.6.15 by any chance? > > > > > > I don't recall that there every has been such a kernel release ;-) > > > > > > But seriously, 2.6.15 is as dead as Tutankhamun. > > > > Some chip vendors only support that version, so I am assuming > > that that was the reason for the question. > > That's correct, actually :-) > > > It is a classic case of what happens when people do ports > > that are not merged. They say it is good enough as is and > > then never move forward or fix bugs. > > True, and I don't know why these vendors do it. I wish too that they > didn't. Talk to them. Be prepared to reiterate. > > The good news I guess is that we have the source, so we could > > forward port it if we were really motivated. > > Yes, but isn't it a lot of work considering the lack of a > flush_anon_page in 2.6.15? David wrote about forward porting the patches in your vendor kernel to a more modern kernel. That would require some work but the flush_anon_page() thing would be the least of your worries. Otherwise, you'd need to backport the about following changesets into your kernel to get flush_anon_page: 03beb07664d768db97bf454ae5c9581cd4737bb4 df7c814ea6385fea8ccf54c80ec78326f78b743e f036773e8760a79ad9fdeea6665f86d3493d40d1 4c40981a5c0fe1ee5c755a55a4a8e5e3527f0bca Ralf
