On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 22:37 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:Why are we rushing so much to do 64-bit paravirt that we are breaking working configurations? If the developement is going to be this chaotic, it should be done and tested out of tree until it can stabilize. I do not like having to continuously retest and review the x86 branch because the paravirt-ops are constantly in flux and the 32-bit code keeps breaking. We won't be doing 64-bit paravirt-ops for exactly this reason - is there a serious justification from the performance angle on modern 64-bit hardware? If not, why justify the complexity and hackery to Linux? Zach --
| Paul Jackson | Re: cpuset-remove-sched-domain-hooks-from-cpusets |
| James Bottomley | Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-)) |
| David Miller | Slow DOWN, please!!! |
| Masami Hiramatsu | Re: [RFC PATCH v4] Unified trace buffer |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Parag Warudkar | Re: 2.6.29-rc3: tg3 dead after resume |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
