Re: Where is 2.6.32?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On 12/31/2009 12:14 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Konstantin Svist wrote:
On 12/31/2009 09:10 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
And leaves you with no Fedora patches and the disk performance
regression issues of 2.6.32. Also a tainted kernel which some
developers will ignore if you get a trace, etc.

I thought it's only tainted if there are non-GPL modules compiled in.
For instance, I saw the tainted message whenever I insmod'ed fglrx driver

You're right, I am assuming he was talking about the nvidia modules
which are not GPL, when he mentioned So it would only
me tainted if he wanted to have graphics. Or the licensing may have
changed, things are not the same for long.

Who needs the Fedora patches? I'm not missing them here. Can you tell me exactly the patches I'm missing and what they would do for me? If these patches are so valuable, why aren't they submitted upstream so the world can benefit. Maybe because Linus doesn't want them?

I haven't noticed any disk performance regression/problem. Maybe I don't beat it hard enough. hdparm -Tt shows 60.84 MB/s with the fedora kernel and 61.09 MB/s with my kernel. I know there's a CFS throughput problem, but that's easily fixed.

My Fedora kernel would also be tainted, since I have to run the Nvidia driver in any case.

I don't see any down side to running my own kernel. Plus I save 8MB of kernel memory (enough to negate the bloated Nvidia driver), and I enjoy the tweaking.

Best wishes in the new year!


fedora-list mailing list
To unsubscribe:

[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux