[Elmer Joandi]
> Oh, and one more point: if linux is going to have nonprofessional
> endusers space comparable to MSWin, then you probably do not want to
> have every bug report, because these will be stupid anyway, with or
> without debug info. But if ideological wars stop development in
>
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
> >
> > "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > > > Something RedHat & co may want to consider doing is providing a basic
> > > > > kernel and have, as part of the install procedure or later, an
> > > > >
"Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Andrew E. Mileski wrote:
> > Agreed, but that wasn't my point. There is debug code in the current
> > kernel that defines DEBUG to something non-numeric, which causes
> > the compile to barf on kernel.h in some cases (try defining DEBUG in
>
Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
>
> "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I'm talking about crap like the global compile options (processor, SMP,
> > etc.)
>
> that's could be only for the experienced user and the experienced user
> can find how to reboot and compile is own kernel (or
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm talking about crap like the global compile options (processor, SMP,
> etc.)
that's could be only for the experienced user and the experienced user
can find how to reboot and compile is own kernel (or even to generate
a distribution with his
Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
>
> "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It's not that slow compared to a whole distro install, although you would
> > of course want to do it *optionally*.
>
> that would be for sure, but keep in mind by experiences most people
> sent us a /lot/ of bug
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Andrew E. Mileski wrote:
> "Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Andrew E. Mileski wrote:
> > >
> > > Reminds me ... has a "#if DEBUG" statement that blows
> > > up if the debug code does something like "#define DEBUG(X...) printk(X...)".
> > > I came
Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
>
> "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > > Something RedHat & co may want to consider doing is providing a basic
> > > > kernel and have, as part of the install procedure or later, an
> > > > automatic recompile and install kernel procedure. It could be
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Something RedHat & co may want to consider doing is providing a basic
> > > kernel and have, as part of the install procedure or later, an
> > > automatic recompile and install kernel procedure. It could be
> > > automated very easily, and on
Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
>
> "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Something RedHat & co may want to consider doing is providing a basic
> > kernel and have, as part of the install procedure or later, an
> > automatic recompile and install kernel procedure. It could be
> >
"Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Andrew E. Mileski wrote:
> >
> > Reminds me ... has a "#if DEBUG" statement that blows
> > up if the debug code does something like "#define DEBUG(X...) printk(X...)".
> > I came across this recently (think I was debugging PCI code ... not
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Andrew E. Mileski wrote:
> Elmer Joandi wrote:
> >
> > Now if there would be simple _unified_ system for switching debug code
> > on/off, it would be a real win. That recompilation-capable enduser would
> > not need much knowledge to go "General Setup" or newly created
> >
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Something RedHat & co may want to consider doing is providing a basic
> kernel and have, as part of the install procedure or later, an
> automatic recompile and install kernel procedure. It could be
> automated very easily, and on all but the very
Elmer Joandi wrote:
>
> Now if there would be simple _unified_ system for switching debug code
> on/off, it would be a real win. That recompilation-capable enduser would
> not need much knowledge to go "General Setup" or newly created
> "Optimization" section and switch debugging off/on for
well, really, look the other side:
We dont make a way to take info away, we just put a lot more into it and
give the option to take it away if it is not needed.
With this you get your usual amount of debug info plus a way to have lots
more.
Oh, and one more point: if linux is going to have
Elmer Joandi wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Rogier Wolff wrote:
> > Turns out that people will
> > prefer to run the "performance" kernel, and they will send in useless
> > bugreports like "my just hangs" much more often than now.
>
> But look at positive side:
I disagree:
> 1. really few
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Rogier Wolff wrote:
> Turns out that people will
> prefer to run the "performance" kernel, and they will send in useless
> bugreports like "my just hangs" much more often than now.
But look at positive side:
1. really few people run development kernels despite the
Elmer Joandi wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Rogier Wolff wrote:
>
> > Now, how is say "Red Hat" (*) going to ship kernels? Of course they are
> > going to turn off debugging. Then I'll be stuck with a non-recompiling
> > user-in-trouble with a non-debugging-enabled kernel.
>
> Red Hat
Elmer Joandi wrote:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Rogier Wolff wrote:
Now, how is say "Red Hat" (*) going to ship kernels? Of course they are
going to turn off debugging. Then I'll be stuck with a non-recompiling
user-in-trouble with a non-debugging-enabled kernel.
Red Hat will ship two
Elmer Joandi wrote:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Rogier Wolff wrote:
Turns out that people will
prefer to run the "performance" kernel, and they will send in useless
bugreports like "my just hangs" much more often than now.
But look at positive side:
I disagree:
1. really few people run
well, really, look the other side:
We dont make a way to take info away, we just put a lot more into it and
give the option to take it away if it is not needed.
With this you get your usual amount of debug info plus a way to have lots
more.
Oh, and one more point: if linux is going to have
Elmer Joandi wrote:
Now if there would be simple _unified_ system for switching debug code
on/off, it would be a real win. That recompilation-capable enduser would
not need much knowledge to go "General Setup" or newly created
"Optimization" section and switch debugging off/on for _all_
"H. Peter Anvin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Something RedHat co may want to consider doing is providing a basic
kernel and have, as part of the install procedure or later, an
automatic recompile and install kernel procedure. It could be
automated very easily, and on all but the very slowest
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Andrew E. Mileski wrote:
Elmer Joandi wrote:
Now if there would be simple _unified_ system for switching debug code
on/off, it would be a real win. That recompilation-capable enduser would
not need much knowledge to go "General Setup" or newly created
"Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Andrew E. Mileski wrote:
Reminds me ... linux/kernel.h has a "#if DEBUG" statement that blows
up if the debug code does something like "#define DEBUG(X...) printk(X...)".
I came across this recently (think I was debugging PCI code ...
Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
"H. Peter Anvin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Something RedHat co may want to consider doing is providing a basic
kernel and have, as part of the install procedure or later, an
automatic recompile and install kernel procedure. It could be
automated very easily,
"H. Peter Anvin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Something RedHat co may want to consider doing is providing a basic
kernel and have, as part of the install procedure or later, an
automatic recompile and install kernel procedure. It could be
automated very easily, and on all but the very
Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
"H. Peter Anvin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Something RedHat co may want to consider doing is providing a basic
kernel and have, as part of the install procedure or later, an
automatic recompile and install kernel procedure. It could be
automated very
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Andrew E. Mileski wrote:
"Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Andrew E. Mileski wrote:
Reminds me ... linux/kernel.h has a "#if DEBUG" statement that blows
up if the debug code does something like "#define DEBUG(X...) printk(X...)".
I came
Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
"H. Peter Anvin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's not that slow compared to a whole distro install, although you would
of course want to do it *optionally*.
that would be for sure, but keep in mind by experiences most people
sent us a /lot/ of bug reports
"H. Peter Anvin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm talking about crap like the global compile options (processor, SMP,
etc.)
that's could be only for the experienced user and the experienced user
can find how to reboot and compile is own kernel (or even to generate
a distribution with his
Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
"H. Peter Anvin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm talking about crap like the global compile options (processor, SMP,
etc.)
that's could be only for the experienced user and the experienced user
can find how to reboot and compile is own kernel (or even to
"Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Andrew E. Mileski wrote:
Agreed, but that wasn't my point. There is debug code in the current
kernel that defines DEBUG to something non-numeric, which causes
the compile to barf on kernel.h in some cases (try defining DEBUG in
your
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
"H. Peter Anvin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Something RedHat co may want to consider doing is providing a basic
kernel and have, as part of the install procedure or later, an
automatic recompile and
[Elmer Joandi]
Oh, and one more point: if linux is going to have nonprofessional
endusers space comparable to MSWin, then you probably do not want to
have every bug report, because these will be stupid anyway, with or
without debug info. But if ideological wars stop development in
nonsense
On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 08:25:38PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> By author:Elmer Joandi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> >
> > Red Hat will ship two kernels. Well, they actually ship now about 4 ones
> > or something. So they will
Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author:Elmer Joandi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Red Hat will ship two kernels. Well, they actually ship now about 4 ones
> or something. So they will ship 8.
>
Something RedHat & co may want to consider doing is providing a
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Rogier Wolff wrote:
> Now, how is say "Red Hat" (*) going to ship kernels? Of course they are
> going to turn off debugging. Then I'll be stuck with a non-recompiling
> user-in-trouble with a non-debugging-enabled kernel.
Red Hat will ship two kernels. Well, they
Elmer Joandi wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2000, Rogier Wolff wrote:
> > Sure it will slow the driver down a bit, because of all those bit-test
> > instructions in the driver. If it bothers you, you get to turn it
> > off. If you are capable of that, you are also capable enough to turn
> > it
On Sun, 26 Nov 2000, Rogier Wolff wrote:
> Sure it will slow the driver down a bit, because of all those bit-test
> instructions in the driver. If it bothers you, you get to turn it
> off. If you are capable of that, you are also capable enough to turn
> it back on when neccesary.
Now if there
On Sun, 26 Nov 2000, Rogier Wolff wrote:
Sure it will slow the driver down a bit, because of all those bit-test
instructions in the driver. If it bothers you, you get to turn it
off. If you are capable of that, you are also capable enough to turn
it back on when neccesary.
Now if there
Elmer Joandi wrote:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2000, Rogier Wolff wrote:
Sure it will slow the driver down a bit, because of all those bit-test
instructions in the driver. If it bothers you, you get to turn it
off. If you are capable of that, you are also capable enough to turn
it back on when
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Rogier Wolff wrote:
Now, how is say "Red Hat" (*) going to ship kernels? Of course they are
going to turn off debugging. Then I'll be stuck with a non-recompiling
user-in-trouble with a non-debugging-enabled kernel.
Red Hat will ship two kernels. Well, they actually
Followup to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
By author:Elmer Joandi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
Red Hat will ship two kernels. Well, they actually ship now about 4 ones
or something. So they will ship 8.
Something RedHat co may want to consider doing is providing a basic
On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 08:25:38PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Followup to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
By author:Elmer Joandi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
Red Hat will ship two kernels. Well, they actually ship now about 4 ones
or something. So they will ship 8.
45 matches
Mail list logo
