On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:14:29AM +0000, Dave Jones wrote: > the 'stay close to mainline' mantra of fc2 was originally going to be > the way to go for fc1 too, but things didnt work out that way. That would presuppose that 2.4 mainline was deployable for production use. That hasn't been true for all of 2.4. The choice has largely been -ac or -aa. Fortunately, deploying a (near) vanilla 2.6 kernel on common hardware is beginning to look like a real possibility. > The RHL9 kernel has a mismash of rmap patches + various bits that > folks did some of which went into later upstream rmap patches, some > didn't. For a recent RHL7/8/9 update, I looked into updating the rmap > patch to something more recent from upstream. It was too painful for > words, and would've required a) lots of time to get right and > b) proper understanding of the issues in vm land. Having looked at merging pieces of three or four trees myself, I feel your pain. :-p > I'm going to look into merging the vm changes for a future fc1 update. > Right now there still seem to be some niggles that need to be worked > out, but it's certainly no worse than whats in FC1 by all accounts. > > I can't win.. Just one user's perspective, but at this point I'd suggest responding to serious bug reports in the FC1 kernel, and concentrating effort on getting 2.6 into shape (forward porting fixes from 2.4, getting the less common block drivers working, etc.). FC2 will be upon us soon. :-) And thanks for all your hard work -- it is greatly appreciated. Bill Rugolsky
