On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 11:50:22PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 11:17:47PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Well, you don't like the patch, and Herbert didn't, now, the question is
> > what about the functionality ? Do you also discard it because it is not
> > the one true
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 11:17:47PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Well, you don't like the patch, and Herbert didn't, now, the question is
> what about the functionality ? Do you also discard it because it is not
> the one true way of kernel booting, or do you find it acceptable ?
As it's stated in t
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 11:20:56PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Who talked about modularizing all fb drivers for all architectures. And
> > > btw, many architectures have text-only firmware-based consoles that
> > > allow early debugging (even long before any fb driver can take over
> > >
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 07:38:14PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 04:25:22PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Well, if you would go out of your x86-centric world, you would know that
> > half if not more of the architectures debian support _DON'T_ have text
> > console. You
> > Who talked about modularizing all fb drivers for all architectures. And
> > btw, many architectures have text-only firmware-based consoles that
> > allow early debugging (even long before any fb driver can take over
> > control)
>
> And many powerpc subarches don't have, nor does m68k or spar
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 07:38:14PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 04:25:22PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Well, if you would go out of your x86-centric world, you would know that
> > half if not more of the architectures debian support _DON'T_ have text
> > console. You
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 07:36:06PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 11:37:53AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Two: The official Debian kernel is modularized to a great extent. On
> > > i386, all framebuffer drivers and framebuffer console support itself
> >
> > This is b
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 07:33:23PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 09:37:22AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > I probably don't disagree, i only disagree with the dictatorial method,
> > while this was supposed to be a team.
>
> If a team needs to discuss every little bit of
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 07:30:35PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 08:32:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Notice that Christoph did close this bug report without even bothering
> > to discuss this, thus taking the decision from the team and into his own
> > hands. Christ
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 04:25:22PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Well, if you would go out of your x86-centric world, you would know that
> half if not more of the architectures debian support _DON'T_ have text
> console. You mean we should provide a null modem cable and a laptop with
> every debian
> I'd like to know how a modularized PCI subsystem can be loaded _AFTER_
> a PCI dependent FB driver.
> What then if the PCI buswalk kills the kernel?
The PCI subsystem is initialized before VESAFB even in the built-in
case.
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 11:37:53AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Two: The official Debian kernel is modularized to a great extent. On
> > i386, all framebuffer drivers and framebuffer console support itself
>
> This is bullshit. I don't think it is a great idea to modularize the
> kernel, and thu
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 09:37:22AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> I probably don't disagree, i only disagree with the dictatorial method,
> while this was supposed to be a team.
If a team needs to discuss every little bit of work it's much less
effective then a single person doing the actual work. G
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 03:28:21AM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> He didn't close it; he tagged in +wontfix. He mentioned his reasoning
> (the fact that there's userspace graphical boot screens), but it's not
> apparent due to the way the BTS works. FYI, Christoph, people will
> usually email @bu
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 08:32:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Notice that Christoph did close this bug report without even bothering
> to discuss this, thus taking the decision from the team and into his own
> hands. Christoph, could you please justify your actions here ? They may
> be right and a
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 12:13:41PM +0200, Marco Amadori wrote:
> The kernel patch is small, the userspace is trival and the media space is 1%
> of e.g. kde-artworks eye candy stuff.
The kernel patch adds a full jpeg decoder and adds horrible hooks to the
console subsystem, the fbdev subsystem and
---
> Hi,
>
> > I'd like to know how a modularized PCI subsystem can be loaded
_AFTER_
> > a PCI dependent FB driver.
>
> Well, duh, obviously you can't do that. :-/
Heh, I has a feeling that wouldn't be that easy ;)
> > What then if the PCI buswalk kills the kernel?
>
> You w
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 03:50:28PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I'd like to know how a modularized PCI subsystem can be loaded _AFTER_
> > a PCI dependent FB driver.
>
> Well, duh, obviously you can't do that. :-/
>
> > What then if the PCI buswalk kills the kernel?
>
> You write
---
> Hi, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > This is bullshit. I don't think it is a great idea to modularize
the
> > kernel, and thus lose all the early debugging. We are going to
hurt us if
> > we go that way, especially as the boot process is now more fragile
as it
> > used to be, thanks
Hi,
> I'd like to know how a modularized PCI subsystem can be loaded _AFTER_
> a PCI dependent FB driver.
Well, duh, obviously you can't do that. :-/
> What then if the PCI buswalk kills the kernel?
You write these parts of the kernel defensively so that this doesn't
happen, and/or you test it
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 03:18:47PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > This is bullshit. I don't think it is a great idea to modularize the
> > kernel, and thus lose all the early debugging. We are going to hurt us if
> > we go that way, especially as the boot process is
Hi, Sven Luther wrote:
> This is bullshit. I don't think it is a great idea to modularize the
> kernel, and thus lose all the early debugging. We are going to hurt us if
> we go that way, especially as the boot process is now more fragile as it
> used to be, thanks to the initrd thingy,
The worka
#include
* Andrew Pollock [Wed, Jun 30 2004, 09:17:59AM]:
> Ah yes. Herbert had quite strong views on what should and shouldn't be done
> in the kernel, despite the fact that things existed in the kernel here and
> now, and to implement the equivalent in userspace would require someone to
> actua
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 09:54:48AM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Bluefuture writes:
>
> > > The low techie people I came across think that anything beside
> > > graphics are "old computing" or recovery broken things... so a
> > > bootsplash help they to trust the operating system (the c
Alle 09:54, giovedì 01 luglio 2004, Jens Schmalzing ha scritto:
> Psychology aside, there are two technical reasons for not integrating
> this kernel patch.
>
> One: It works exclusively with vesafb and this sucks. But let's
> assume for the moment that we all have nothing but i386 hardware and
>
Hi,
Bluefuture writes:
> > The low techie people I came across think that anything beside
> > graphics are "old computing" or recovery broken things... so a
> > bootsplash help they to trust the operating system (the computer
> > as whole object from their point of view).
>
> I'm totally agree o
> The low techie people I came across think that anything beside
graphics are
>"old computing" or recovery broken things... so a bootsplash help they to
>trust the operating system (the computer as whole object from their point of
>view).
I'm totally agree on this point. In my experience of ins
> The low techie people I came across think that anything beside
graphics are
>"old computing" or recovery broken things... so a bootsplash help they to
>trust the operating system (the computer as whole object from their point of
>view).
I'm totally agree on this point. In my experience of ins
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 12:13:41PM +0200, Marco Amadori wrote:
> Alle 02:01, mercoledì 30 giugno 2004, Andres Salomon ha scritto:
>
> > >> I want to "open" a discussion about this bug on the debian-kernel
> > >> mailing list:
> > >> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=253224
>
> > He
Alle 02:01, mercoledì 30 giugno 2004, Andres Salomon ha scritto:
> >> I want to "open" a discussion about this bug on the debian-kernel
> >> mailing list:
> >> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=253224
> Heh, when I first saw this post, I was ready to agree w/ Herbert (feh,
> unnece
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 03:28:21AM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:32:43 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> [...]
> > Notice that Christoph did close this bug report without even bothering
> > to discuss this, thus taking the decision from the team and into his own
> > hands. Christo
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:32:43 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
[...]
> Notice that Christoph did close this bug report without even bothering
> to discuss this, thus taking the decision from the team and into his own
> hands. Christoph, could you please justify your actions here ? They may
> be right and a
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 09:17:59AM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 10:54:23PM +0200, Bluefuture wrote:
> > I want to "open" a discussion about this bug on the debian-kernel
> > mailing list:
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=253224
> >
>
> Ah yes. Herber
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:01:42 -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:17:59 +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 10:54:23PM +0200, Bluefuture wrote:
>>> I want to "open" a discussion about this bug on the debian-kernel
>>> mailing list:
>>> http://bugs.debian.or
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:17:59 +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 10:54:23PM +0200, Bluefuture wrote:
>> I want to "open" a discussion about this bug on the debian-kernel
>> mailing list:
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=253224
>>
[...]
>
> I personally thin
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 10:54:23PM +0200, Bluefuture wrote:
> I want to "open" a discussion about this bug on the debian-kernel
> mailing list:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=253224
>
Ah yes. Herbert had quite strong views on what should and shouldn't be done
in the kernel, d
I want to "open" a discussion about this bug on the debian-kernel
mailing list:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=253224
Cheers,
Stefano
37 matches
Mail list logo
