* Muli Ben-Yehuda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > but i still /strongly/ disagree with your attitude that mainline is
> > 'experimental' and hence there's nothing to see here, move over.
>
> We can agree to disagree about how "experimental" mainline should be.
> [...]
there's not much to disag
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 11:37:02AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> I think in the future it would be better to annotate the introduction of
> new, widely used codepaths via KERN_DEBUG printouts, something along the
> lines of:
>
> printk(KERN_DEBUG "calgary: running new EBDA code.\n");
>
* Muli Ben-Yehuda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > it would be used, period. You may disagree, but fundamentally I
> > > think the mainline kernel should be fairly experimental, which
> > > means enabling new code by default.
> >
> > that's a totally wrong attitude - the mainline kernel is /no
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 05:23:38PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > I think that it makes sense to have it default y for the mainline
> > kernel and default n for the distro kernels, which is why I added the
> > option to make it possible to compile Calgary in but only enable it if
> > you want to
* Muli Ben-Yehuda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 11:28:46AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > config CALGARY_IOMMU_ENABLED_BY_DEFAULT
> > bool "Should Calgary be enabled by default?"
> > default y
> > depends on CALGARY_IOMMU
> > help
> >
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 11:28:46AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> config CALGARY_IOMMU_ENABLED_BY_DEFAULT
> bool "Should Calgary be enabled by default?"
> default y
> depends on CALGARY_IOMMU
> help
> Should Calgary be enabled by default? if you choose 'y',
Subject: [patch] x86_64: fix boot hang caused by
CALGARY_IOMMU_ENABLED_BY_DEFAULT
From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
one of my boxes didnt boot the 2.6.20-rc1-rt0 kernel rpm, it hung during
early bootup. After an hour or two of happy debugging i narrowed it down
7 matches
Mail list logo
