Hi,
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 10:10:28AM +0100, Philip Kendall wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 08:36:25AM +1000, Craig Small wrote: > > > > > > I wouldn't go near 2.4.3 on an alpha. I have seen some very very awful > > > things going on with it. If you can get the ^**(%! to compile it will > > > probably crash anyway. > > > > I'm certainly not having any problems running 2.4.3-ac3 on my > ^^^^ > > AlphaStation 255 (at least, I'm not having any problems I didn't have > > running 2.2.x :-) ); what's happened to other people's machines? > > ac means Alan Cox patches doesn't it? Totally different story, apparently. > There appears to be generally a lot more success the ac stream than the > generic kernel. as for the stock 2.4.3, there are issues. The mm/numa structure has been changed quite significantly btw 2.4.2 and 2.4.3. Unfortunately, the changes were adopted for some archs, but not all - with alpha being one of them. This causes the build errors. >From close to day 1, there has been a patch around, that addresses this error. >It's called alpha-numa-2 and can be retrieved from ftp.kernel.org in Andrea Arcangeli's people-subdir. All the 2.4.3-ac3 does, is integrating this patch. IMHO, the -ac series is problematic at best in various cases and should be considered with extreme caution. In my experience, all release kernels 2.4.[0,1,2] worked quite well for me, set aside the well known bugs, like loop-devices etc... At the present time, I would go with 2.4.2 and the generic kernel series. I did get 2.4.3 to compile OK, but I didn't use it due to the fact, that the alpha-numa-2 patch changed the mm subsystem in such a substantial way, that i did not want to be a tester for that on my production-alpha. IMHO, the 2.4.x kernels are not quite ready for prime-time in all situations. I use them in a very conservative setup and therefore leave out most of it's advanced and aggressive features ( like Reiser, NFS-v3, devfs and the like ). For these features, I use an x86 with kernel 2.2.18/19, which is more stable on most of the advanced features mentioned above. With the conservative setup, kernel 2.4.2 works *very* well for me, but everybody has to be warned, that this might not be the case for them, especially, if it comes to alphas. I just wished, Compaq would get it's act together and form a team, that would carefully adopt changes to alpha and try to keep the 2.4.x-pre series as current as x86, wrt fundamental subsystem changes and try to fold those changes back to Linus' pre-tree. I'm probably not the only one being convinced, that Alpha's future is bound to Linux. Just my dreams and $.02 Regards, T. Weyergraf -- Thomas Weyergraf [EMAIL PROTECTED] My Favorite IA64 Opcode-guess ( see arch/ia64/lib/memset.S ) "br.ret.spnt.few" - got back from getting beer, did not spend a lot.
