8:16 a.m.
There's an experimental test kernel available for folks using the
testing repository (kernel-2.4.22-2132).
Theres a fairly set of changes in this release due to the addition
of the Tux http accelerator that we had in Red Hat Linux 9.
I'd appreciate it very much if folks could hammer on this a little
and see what falls out. The usage of Tux is no different from how
it was in previous releases, so all existing documentation suffices.
Cheers.
Dave
8:30 a.m.
Dave Jones wrote :
There's an experimental test kernel available for folks using
the
testing repository (kernel-2.4.22-2132).
Theres a fairly set of changes in this release due to the addition
of the Tux http accelerator that we had in Red Hat Linux 9.
I'd appreciate it very much if folks could hammer on this a little
and see what falls out. The usage of Tux is no different from how
it was in previous releases, so all existing documentation suffices.
Would any SATA patches have been included by any chance? I think I saw some
in RHEL3's kernel, and also recall having read a post by Alan saying that
SATA in 2.4 was currently more solid than in 2.6.
Matthias
--
Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora Core release 1 (Yarrow) - Linux kernel 2.4.22-1.2129.nptl
Load : 1.42 0.85 0.57
9:02 a.m.
On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 14:30, Matthias Saou wrote:
Would any SATA patches have been included by any chance? I think I
saw some
in RHEL3's kernel, and also recall having read a post by Alan saying that
SATA in 2.4 was currently more solid than in 2.6.
Not in this release, but a libata update is on the top of my todo list
for FC1. (I had hoped for it this week, but I've been a little busy with
other stuff)
The only other change in this kernel which I forgot to mention was a
change in config options for matroxfb. It should now support G450/G550.
Users of earlier Matrox cards shouldn't see any change.
Dave
9:11 a.m.
are there a lot of core kernel changes required for Tux, or is Tux
fairly isolated/modular?
9:14 a.m.
On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 15:11, Nathan Bryant wrote:
are there a lot of core kernel changes required for Tux, or is Tux
fairly isolated/modular?
It's mostly isolated to net/tux/ , though there are some changes to the
guts of mm/ fs/ net/
Its invasive in the sense that it has patches into core code that need
wiring up to the tux internals, but its nowhere as invasive as say nptl,
or exec-shield.
When the sysctl is disabled the code it runs is 99% the same as
how it was without the tux patch (The difference being in things
like some functions taking extra parameters).
Dave
3:59 a.m.
Dave Jones wrote:
On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 14:30, Matthias Saou wrote:
>Would any SATA patches have been included by any chance? I think I saw some
>in RHEL3's kernel, and also recall having read a post by Alan saying that
>SATA in 2.4 was currently more solid than in 2.6.
>
>
Not in this release, but a libata update is on the top of my todo list
for FC1. (I had hoped for it this week, but I've been a little busy with
other stuff)
The only other change in this kernel which I forgot to mention was a
change in config options for matroxfb. It should now support G450/G550.
Users of earlier Matrox cards shouldn't see any change.
You can grab a functioning Promise 0libata kernel from:
http://www.ee.oulu.fi/~pp/fc1-libata
Use at your own risk.
RaXeT
9:43 a.m.
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Dave Jones wrote:
I'd appreciate it very much if folks could hammer on this a
little
and see what falls out. The usage of Tux is no different from how
it was in previous releases, so all existing documentation suffices.
For some reason vi now starts much slower on my machine, I can hear much
more disk activity while it starts too. If I do "strace vi" then it starts
at the old speed!
Pentium 4, 850 chipset, SCSI disk, NVIDIA driver installed.
-psi
12:59 p.m.
On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 15:43, Per Steinar Iversen wrote:
For some reason vi now starts much slower on my machine, I can hear
much
more disk activity while it starts too. If I do "strace vi" then it starts
at the old speed!
That is _very_ odd. Same thing happen with 2135 ?
Pentium 4, 850 chipset, SCSI disk, NVIDIA driver installed.
And it happens even without the nvidia driver loaded ?
Dave
6:01 p.m.
I think that acpi and usb are working decent.
Jim
-------------------------
Temperature related
cooling mode: active
<polling disabled>
state: ok
temperature: 41 C
critical (S5): 100 C
passive: 97 C: tc1=4 tc2=3 tsp=40 devices=0xcf6b6d80
part of dmesg:
ACPI: AC Adapter [ACAD] (on-line)
ACPI: Battery Slot [BAT1] (battery present)
ACPI: Power Button (FF) [PWRF]
ACPI: Lid Switch [LID]
ACPI: Processor [CPU0] (supports C1 C2)
ACPI: Thermal Zone [THRM] (63 C)
usb.c: registered new driver usbdevfs
usb.c: registered new driver hub
usb-ohci.c: USB OHCI at membase 0xd0070000, IRQ 9
usb-ohci.c: usb-00:02.0, ALi Corporation USB 1.1 Controller
usb.c: new USB bus registered, assigned bus number 1
hub.c: USB hub found
hub.c: 4 ports detected
usb.c: registered new driver hiddev
usb.c: registered new driver hid
7443
days inactive
7448
days old
8 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Dave Jones -
Jim Cornette -
Matthias Saou -
Nathan Bryant -
Per Steinar Iversen -
RaXeT