-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 rhabarber1848 wrote: > Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > >> I think that improving NPTL would be a good thing, i suppose that >> we ultimately want to abandon the other impls in favour of it, at >> least mid- or long-term. > > Hi, > > would it then still be possible to use uClibc with Linux kernel 2.4.x? I'm wondering if does it make sense n 2009 still using kernel 2.4... just a my opinion.
> Especially in the embedded sector kernel 2.4 is often used because it is > smaller than 2.6. > embedded worlds is now moving to NAND, and size will not longer a big deal. And what about performance ? O(1) scheduler that came with kernel 2.6, just to talk about one of the most important change in 2.6 series ? should not be the time to upgrade ? > Greetings, rhabarber1848 > Carmelo > > _______________________________________________ > uClibc mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAknKE0YACgkQoRq/3BrK1s/GpwCeNHZ+CKJBxiVswuhHBQ4p8Sl+ vJoAoLwlVt/ykeGYYchI2f/N5LZBzvoR =S7FL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
