Dave Jones wrote:
On the subject of backporting, due to us only having 5 months
for F8, and a lot of that time being 'conference season', I expect
upstream to slow down a little, so we're probably looking at
2.6.23 for F8. I'm guessing .24 will begin way too late in our cycle,
so we'll have
Axel Thimm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
Would it make sense to add these patches to Fedora's kernel?
http://www.atcomputing.nl/Tools/atop
This could help in the area of extending laptop battery life by
detecting unneccessary disk access. The first step is to have some
disk I/O to process
Axel Thimm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
These patches:
a) aren't upstream
b) change the format of /proc/stat
c) change process accounting in an incompatible way
So... no.
OK, fair enough (I wasn't aware of b) and c)).
Any other way then to achive the stated goals?
I haven't
Here I am again with those hacks to do alternate builds from the kernel
spec file. Can I commit at least the spec parts to rawhide now?
The diff is only this:
--- kernel-2.6.spec 08 Jun 2007 12:55:12 -0700 1.3213
+++ kernel-2.6.spec 08 Jun 2007 12:55:05 -0700
@@ -63,7
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 12:59:26PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
Here I am again with those hacks to do alternate builds from the kernel
spec file. Can I commit at least the spec parts to rawhide now?
The diff is only this:
# This patch adds a make nonint_oldconfig which is
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 03:47:34PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Axel Thimm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
These patches:
a) aren't upstream
b) change the format of /proc/stat
c) change process accounting in an incompatible way
So... no.
OK, fair enough (I wasn't aware of
JU == Jonathan Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JU So, I was wondering what would be useful information to help debug
JU this, beyond it doesn't work very well.
Well, the latest F8 kernels have a newer version of the iwlwifi
drivers; some folks have reported that it works much better for
