[Elmer Joandi]
> Oh, and one more point: if linux is going to have nonprofessional
> endusers space comparable to MSWin, then you probably do not want to
> have every bug report, because these will be stupid anyway, with or
> without debug info. But if ideological wars stop development in
> nons
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
> >
> > "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > > > Something RedHat & co may want to consider doing is providing a basic
> > > > > kernel and have, as part of the install procedure or later, an
> > > > > automa
"Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Andrew E. Mileski wrote:
> > Agreed, but that wasn't my point. There is debug code in the current
> > kernel that defines DEBUG to something non-numeric, which causes
> > the compile to barf on kernel.h in some cases (try defining DEBUG in
> >
Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
>
> "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I'm talking about crap like the global compile options (processor, SMP,
> > etc.)
>
> that's could be only for the experienced user and the experienced user
> can find how to reboot and compile is own kernel (or even
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm talking about crap like the global compile options (processor, SMP,
> etc.)
that's could be only for the experienced user and the experienced user
can find how to reboot and compile is own kernel (or even to generate
a distribution with his pers
Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
>
> "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It's not that slow compared to a whole distro install, although you would
> > of course want to do it *optionally*.
>
> that would be for sure, but keep in mind by experiences most people
> sent us a /lot/ of bug rep
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's not that slow compared to a whole distro install, although you would
> of course want to do it *optionally*.
that would be for sure, but keep in mind by experiences most people
sent us a /lot/ of bug reports because they don't know how to do
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Andrew E. Mileski wrote:
> "Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Andrew E. Mileski wrote:
> > >
> > > Reminds me ... has a "#if DEBUG" statement that blows
> > > up if the debug code does something like "#define DEBUG(X...) printk(X...)".
> > > I came acr
Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
>
> "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > > Something RedHat & co may want to consider doing is providing a basic
> > > > kernel and have, as part of the install procedure or later, an
> > > > automatic recompile and install kernel procedure. It could be
>
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Something RedHat & co may want to consider doing is providing a basic
> > > kernel and have, as part of the install procedure or later, an
> > > automatic recompile and install kernel procedure. It could be
> > > automated very easily, and on al
Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
>
> "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Something RedHat & co may want to consider doing is providing a basic
> > kernel and have, as part of the install procedure or later, an
> > automatic recompile and install kernel procedure. It could be
> > automated
"Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Andrew E. Mileski wrote:
> >
> > Reminds me ... has a "#if DEBUG" statement that blows
> > up if the debug code does something like "#define DEBUG(X...) printk(X...)".
> > I came across this recently (think I was debugging PCI code ... not sur
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Andrew E. Mileski wrote:
> Elmer Joandi wrote:
> >
> > Now if there would be simple _unified_ system for switching debug code
> > on/off, it would be a real win. That recompilation-capable enduser would
> > not need much knowledge to go "General Setup" or newly created
> >
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Something RedHat & co may want to consider doing is providing a basic
> kernel and have, as part of the install procedure or later, an
> automatic recompile and install kernel procedure. It could be
> automated very easily, and on all but the very s
Elmer Joandi wrote:
>
> Now if there would be simple _unified_ system for switching debug code
> on/off, it would be a real win. That recompilation-capable enduser would
> not need much knowledge to go "General Setup" or newly created
> "Optimization" section and switch debugging off/on for _all
well, really, look the other side:
We dont make a way to take info away, we just put a lot more into it and
give the option to take it away if it is not needed.
With this you get your usual amount of debug info plus a way to have lots
more.
Oh, and one more point: if linux is going to have non
Elmer Joandi wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Rogier Wolff wrote:
> > Turns out that people will
> > prefer to run the "performance" kernel, and they will send in useless
> > bugreports like "my just hangs" much more often than now.
>
> But look at positive side:
I disagree:
> 1. really few
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Rogier Wolff wrote:
> Turns out that people will
> prefer to run the "performance" kernel, and they will send in useless
> bugreports like "my just hangs" much more often than now.
But look at positive side:
1. really few people run development kernels despite the "perform
Elmer Joandi wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Rogier Wolff wrote:
>
> > Now, how is say "Red Hat" (*) going to ship kernels? Of course they are
> > going to turn off debugging. Then I'll be stuck with a non-recompiling
> > user-in-trouble with a non-debugging-enabled kernel.
>
> Red Hat will
On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 08:25:38PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> By author:Elmer Joandi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> >
> > Red Hat will ship two kernels. Well, they actually ship now about 4 ones
> > or something. So they will shi
Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author:Elmer Joandi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Red Hat will ship two kernels. Well, they actually ship now about 4 ones
> or something. So they will ship 8.
>
Something RedHat & co may want to consider doing is providing a bas
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Rogier Wolff wrote:
> Now, how is say "Red Hat" (*) going to ship kernels? Of course they are
> going to turn off debugging. Then I'll be stuck with a non-recompiling
> user-in-trouble with a non-debugging-enabled kernel.
Red Hat will ship two kernels. Well, they actually
Elmer Joandi wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2000, Rogier Wolff wrote:
> > Sure it will slow the driver down a bit, because of all those bit-test
> > instructions in the driver. If it bothers you, you get to turn it
> > off. If you are capable of that, you are also capable enough to turn
> > it back
On Sun, 26 Nov 2000, Rogier Wolff wrote:
> Sure it will slow the driver down a bit, because of all those bit-test
> instructions in the driver. If it bothers you, you get to turn it
> off. If you are capable of that, you are also capable enough to turn
> it back on when neccesary.
Now if there
24 matches
Mail list logo
