On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Charles N Wyble wrote:
>
> Satyam Sharma wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Charles N Wyble wrote:
> >> Andi Kleen wrote:
> >>> Besides it's bad taste and taste is very important.
> >> Well it's bad taste for you (one person).
> >
> > FWIW, my opinion is the same as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Satyam Sharma wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Charles N Wyble wrote:
>> Andi Kleen wrote:
>>> Besides it's bad taste and taste is very important.
>> Well it's bad taste for you (one person).
>
> FWIW, my opinion is the same as Andi's here. Please,
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Charles N Wyble wrote:
>
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> > Besides it's bad taste and taste is very important.
>
> Well it's bad taste for you (one person).
FWIW, my opinion is the same as Andi's here. Please, let's avoid this
disease -- unless *absolutely* required, stuff
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Charles N Wyble wrote:
Andi Kleen wrote:
Besides it's bad taste and taste is very important.
Well it's bad taste for you (one person).
FWIW, my opinion is the same as Andi's here. Please, let's avoid this
disease -- unless *absolutely* required, stuff shouldn't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Satyam Sharma wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Charles N Wyble wrote:
Andi Kleen wrote:
Besides it's bad taste and taste is very important.
Well it's bad taste for you (one person).
FWIW, my opinion is the same as Andi's here. Please, let's
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Charles N Wyble wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Charles N Wyble wrote:
Andi Kleen wrote:
Besides it's bad taste and taste is very important.
Well it's bad taste for you (one person).
FWIW, my opinion is the same as Andi's here. Please,
On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 20:59 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> > At least the Xen port seems to have specific requirements
> > and essentially only work on xen-unstable (?) [or at least
> > some very new Xen version] which probably very few
> > people use.
> >
>
> Only on
On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 20:59 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Andi Kleen wrote:
At least the Xen port seems to have specific requirements
and essentially only work on xen-unstable (?) [or at least
some very new Xen version] which probably very few
people use.
Only on 64-bit hosts,
Andi Kleen wrote:
> At least the Xen port seems to have specific requirements
> and essentially only work on xen-unstable (?) [or at least
> some very new Xen version] which probably very few
> people use.
>
Only on 64-bit hosts, because of bugs in the 64-bit compat layer.
32-on-32 and
On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 23:52 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 September 2007 23:34, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > How about a "select" based on Xen, lguest or VMI? There's no other
> > reason to enable it, after all.
>
> I did an patch to do that recently because the current setup
> is indeed
On Tuesday 18 September 2007 23:34, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 12:57 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Friday 14 September 2007 07:21, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > It's pretty widely used,
> >
> > Is it? By whom?
>
> Hi Andi,
>
> Please stop asking for facts! It's was easy
On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 12:57 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Friday 14 September 2007 07:21, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > It's pretty widely used,
>
> Is it? By whom?
Hi Andi,
Please stop asking for facts! It's was easy claim to make, and hard to
disprove 8)
> > and the distributions will
> Actually if I understand the functionality of paravirt correctly that is
> not correct. I believe that will turn on the paravirt bits which allow
> it to run under things such as VMI or Xen.
You don't understand it correctly then.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andi Kleen wrote:
>
>> Why is making something default y a bad idea?
>> Those most likely to care can turn it off. Is there a harmful effect
>> from leaving it on if its not being used?
>
> Running yes "" | make oldconfig to upgrade kernel
> Why is making something default y a bad idea?
> Those most likely to care can turn it off. Is there a harmful effect
> from leaving it on if its not being used?
Running yes "" | make oldconfig to upgrade kernel configs is standard practice
and you definitely don't want to have all
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Friday 14 September 2007 07:21, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> It's pretty widely used,
>
> Is it? By whom?
>
>> and the distributions will turn it on.
>
> That's no reason to make it default y. Please undo that. default y
> is
On Friday 14 September 2007 07:21, Rusty Russell wrote:
> It's pretty widely used,
Is it? By whom?
> and the distributions will turn it on.
That's no reason to make it default y. Please undo that. default y
is near always a bad idea.
Also I would still consider it experimental.
-Andi
-
To
On Friday 14 September 2007 07:21, Rusty Russell wrote:
It's pretty widely used,
Is it? By whom?
and the distributions will turn it on.
That's no reason to make it default y. Please undo that. default y
is near always a bad idea.
Also I would still consider it experimental.
-Andi
-
To
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andi Kleen wrote:
On Friday 14 September 2007 07:21, Rusty Russell wrote:
It's pretty widely used,
Is it? By whom?
and the distributions will turn it on.
That's no reason to make it default y. Please undo that. default y
is near always
Why is making something default y a bad idea?
Those most likely to care can turn it off. Is there a harmful effect
from leaving it on if its not being used?
Running yes | make oldconfig to upgrade kernel configs is standard practice
and you definitely don't want to have all kinds of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andi Kleen wrote:
Why is making something default y a bad idea?
Those most likely to care can turn it off. Is there a harmful effect
from leaving it on if its not being used?
Running yes | make oldconfig to upgrade kernel configs is
Actually if I understand the functionality of paravirt correctly that is
not correct. I believe that will turn on the paravirt bits which allow
it to run under things such as VMI or Xen.
You don't understand it correctly then.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 12:57 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Friday 14 September 2007 07:21, Rusty Russell wrote:
It's pretty widely used,
Is it? By whom?
Hi Andi,
Please stop asking for facts! It's was easy claim to make, and hard to
disprove 8)
and the distributions will turn it
On Tuesday 18 September 2007 23:34, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 12:57 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Friday 14 September 2007 07:21, Rusty Russell wrote:
It's pretty widely used,
Is it? By whom?
Hi Andi,
Please stop asking for facts! It's was easy claim to make,
On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 23:52 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Tuesday 18 September 2007 23:34, Rusty Russell wrote:
How about a select based on Xen, lguest or VMI? There's no other
reason to enable it, after all.
I did an patch to do that recently because the current setup
is indeed
Andi Kleen wrote:
At least the Xen port seems to have specific requirements
and essentially only work on xen-unstable (?) [or at least
some very new Xen version] which probably very few
people use.
Only on 64-bit hosts, because of bugs in the 64-bit compat layer.
32-on-32 and 64-on-64
26 matches
Mail list logo
