Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 25.02.2009 13:27, Chris Lalancette wrote:
Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
We can also simply do this:
- Install PAE kernel if the CPU supports PAE.
i.e. make PAE the default kernel.
Yes, I really think we should just do this. It's simple, it means we get the
logic right
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:15:37 +0100
Thorsten Leemhuis fed...@leemhuis.info wrote:
On 25.02.2009 13:27, Chris Lalancette wrote:
Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
We can also simply do this:
- Install PAE kernel if the CPU supports PAE.
i.e. make PAE the default kernel.
Yes, I really think we
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 10:19 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Chris Lalancette (clala...@redhat.com) said:
Do we know if anaconda is going to change
to choose kernel-PAE for any machine with the PAE flag, regardless of the
amount
of memory?
That's the plan - the patch should be pretty
- Should we be using the PAE kernel *regardless* of memory size (as
implied above) or do we want some memory requirements?
It's always preferable on hardware (where pae actually works) that also has
the nx cpu feature. True PROT_EXEC enforcement (NX) is only available in
PAE mode.
Thanks,
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:38:42 -0800 (PST)
Roland McGrath rol...@redhat.com wrote:
If we have NX (which anything made in the last few years will)
it's a performance win to use the hardware NX instead of the
segment limit hack we implemented in execshield.
It's more than performance. The
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 21:08 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 06.02.2009 20:55, Kyle McMartin wrote:
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 08:47:41PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Getting rid of the suffix -PAE afaics would solve exactly the problem
that now is just exposed to more people (or might
On 06.02.2009 12:07, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
Dave Jones wrote:
2. Will we eventually rename kernel-PAE.686 to kernel.686?
I don't think we can, otherwise someone with non-PAE 686's who
does an update will suddenly find themselves unable to boot.
I was thinking about this for a little while.
Thorsten Leemhuis (fed...@leemhuis.info) said:
Yes -- all that have kernel.i686 installed now would get the new
kernel.i686 later (the one with PAE). But the latter will not boot on
all machines where the curret kernel.i686 works. If there is no
kernel.i686 (because it is named
Dave Jones wrote:
2. Will we eventually rename kernel-PAE.686 to kernel.686?
I don't think we can, otherwise someone with non-PAE 686's who
does an update will suddenly find themselves unable to boot.
Hi Dave,
I was thinking about this for a little while.
Can't we do this
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 06:07:13AM -0500, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
Dave Jones wrote:
2. Will we eventually rename kernel-PAE.686 to kernel.686?
I don't think we can, otherwise someone with non-PAE 686's who
does an update will suddenly find themselves unable to boot.
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 11:39 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
It's still the same upgrade problem.
Someone will be going from 'kernel' with no PAE to 'kernel' with PAE,
and on a CPU without PAE, that means they can't boot any more.
In that situation they need to go 'kernel'(i686) to 'kernel'(i586)
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 12:23:51PM -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 11:39 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
It's still the same upgrade problem.
Someone will be going from 'kernel' with no PAE to 'kernel' with PAE,
and on a CPU without PAE, that means they can't boot any more.
Part of the problem with that idea is that the Pentium M laptops without PAE
aren't that old. This might upset quite a few people.
Right -- and that's a good point to keep in mind. IMO we shouldn't
break *any* systems when we do this change.
Given the other information coming through
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Prarit Bhargava pra...@redhat.com wrote:
Part of the problem with that idea is that the Pentium M laptops without
PAE
aren't that old. This might upset quite a few people.
Right -- and that's a good point to keep in mind. IMO we shouldn't break
*any*
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 12:34:04PM -0500, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
Given the other information coming through (about dynamic kernel PAE
enable), should we really being doing this right now?
it's vaporware.
Why not wait for the dynamic PAE stuff to settle upstream and then make
the
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 12:38:56PM -0500, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
dynamic PAE ?
Uh -- I can see how that is confusing :) Sorry, let me make another
attempt at that.
What I should have said was that there are patches floating around to
make PAE dynamically selectable --
Dave Jones wrote:
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 12:34:04PM -0500, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
Given the other information coming through (about dynamic kernel PAE
enable), should we really being doing this right now?
it's vaporware.
Why not wait for the dynamic PAE stuff to settle upstream
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 12:29 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 12:23:51PM -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 11:39 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
It's still the same upgrade problem.
Someone will be going from 'kernel' with no PAE to 'kernel' with PAE,
and
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 12:58 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 12:44:28PM -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
?? We haven't shipped a UP x86 kernel in about 3 years.
Er...smp alternatives counts to me as UP. Shame there's no equiv. for
PAE.
oh I see what you were saying.
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 01:01:43PM -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
Not quite though from what I hear (trying to reconcile what Thorsten
said). But perhaps he was solely complaining that most people would run
PAE and thus have to type kmod-crud-PAE.
The kmod thing is a non-argument afaics.
If
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 10:19:17AM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis (fed...@leemhuis.info) said:
Yes -- all that have kernel.i686 installed now would get the new
kernel.i686 later (the one with PAE). But the latter will not boot on
all machines where the curret
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Chris Lalancette (clala...@redhat.com) said:
Do we know if anaconda is going to change
to choose kernel-PAE for any machine with the PAE flag, regardless of the
amount
of memory?
That's the plan - the patch should be pretty trivial.
Yep, I expect it to be. I just
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 08:47:41PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Getting rid of the suffix -PAE afaics would solve exactly the problem
that now is just exposed to more people (or might make solving it a
lot easier afaics). And it would make documentation a whole lot easier,
making Fedora
On 06.02.2009 20:55, Kyle McMartin wrote:
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 08:47:41PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Getting rid of the suffix -PAE afaics would solve exactly the problem
that now is just exposed to more people (or might make solving it a
lot easier afaics). And it would make
Thorsten Leemhuis (fed...@leemhuis.info) said:
I don't see how this is a problem.
Getting rid of the suffix -PAE afaics would solve exactly the problem
that now is just exposed to more people (or might make solving it a
lot easier afaics).
Well, the problem is that you'd have to define a
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 03:11:37PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis (fed...@leemhuis.info) said:
I don't see how this is a problem.
Getting rid of the suffix -PAE afaics would solve exactly the problem
that now is just exposed to more people (or might make solving it a
As per the discussion in #fedora-meeting today,
we're killing off kernel-i686, and just shipping..
* kernel.i586
* kernel-PAE.686
Patch below seems to dtrt.. comments?
Looking at the generated config files, the biggest difference
seems to be that kernel-PAE enables Xen and all it's related
Dave Jones wrote:
As per the discussion in #fedora-meeting today,
we're killing off kernel-i686, and just shipping..
* kernel.i586
* kernel-PAE.686
Patch below seems to dtrt.. comments?
Two quick questions Dave.
1. This is for F11?
2. Will we eventually rename kernel-PAE.686 to
Patch below seems to dtrt.. comments?
Why kill the configs, instead of just changing the spec settings?
@@ -1477,7 +1481,9 @@ mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/boot
cd linux-%{kversion}.%{_target_cpu}
%if %{with_debug}
+%ifnarch i686
BuildKernel %make_target %kernel_image debug
+%endif
%if
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 03:11:40PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
As per the discussion in #fedora-meeting today,
we're killing off kernel-i686, and just shipping..
* kernel.i586
* kernel-PAE.686
Patch below seems to dtrt.. comments?
Looking at the generated config files, the
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 03:22:55PM -0500, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
Two quick questions Dave.
1. This is for F11?
yes
2. Will we eventually rename kernel-PAE.686 to kernel.686?
I don't think we can, otherwise someone with non-PAE 686's who
does an update will suddenly find themselves
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 12:23:07PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
Patch below seems to dtrt.. comments?
Why kill the configs, instead of just changing the spec settings?
@@ -1477,7 +1481,9 @@ mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/boot
cd linux-%{kversion}.%{_target_cpu}
%if
On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 15:11 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
As per the discussion in #fedora-meeting today,
we're killing off kernel-i686, and just shipping..
* kernel.i586
* kernel-PAE.686
Patch below seems to dtrt.. comments?
This should prove interesting for GEM, as Intel still haven't
On 05.02.2009 21:29, Dave Jones wrote:
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 03:22:55PM -0500, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
2. Will we eventually rename kernel-PAE.686 to kernel.686?
I don't think we can,
It'd be nice to get a definite answer from the anaconda/yum crowd.
otherwise someone with non-PAE 686's
34 matches
Mail list logo
