Roland Mainz wrote:
...
delay the project proposal until it is clear that Sun actually
releases the patches for their work. Starting from scratch without
help from Sun will be much harder.
Just a quick note to say I haven't dropped this on the floor. Please give
me some time to look into this. N
Eric Lowe wrote:
> Holger Berger wrote:
> > On 3/24/06, Eric Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> May I suggest that you propose a 64K kernel project. You'll get a +1 from
> >> me, and you'll be off and running.
> >
> > Eric, Roland - I may be interested to be the project lead (with some
> > folks
>> We really ought to ship a debugging C library people could run for
>> development purposes, a C library which:
>
>Yep, the equivalent of kmem_flags for userland. I like it.
>
>> - dies if the qcmp function passed to qsort() isn't correct.
>> - doesn't have any of the backward compati
We really ought to ship a debugging C library people could run for
development purposes, a C library which:
Yep, the equivalent of kmem_flags for userland. I like it.
- dies if the qcmp function passed to qsort() isn't correct.
- doesn't have any of the backward compatibility w
David S. Miller wrote:
The filesystem issues are the worst part of a larger default page
size, for sure.
You can waste more than half of your ram when doing something as
simple as grepping around in a big source tree with 64K vs 8K pages.
I posted some example numbers for doing that in the Linu
>I would argue this isn't the case at all. You can still static link your
>own apps all you want; we just don't provide static versions of the
>libraries included with Solaris anymore. Regardless of how your
>application is built, the expectation is that if it runs on release X, it
>should run
It's great to see this thread still living on. Clearly there is a lot of
interest here, which is exciting in a geeky-sort of way. :)
AFAIK such applications (with statically linked system libraries) are
not supported on Solaris since a while so we do not have this problem
anymore. Neither does
From: Jonathan Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:42:45 -0800
> I believe there was also some amount of filesystem muckings-around; the
> fact that the minimum unit of modification octupled causes any number of
> performance and implementation headaches. Let alone assumptions abo
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 12:28:05AM +0100, Roland Mainz wrote:
> Eric Lowe wrote:
> > David S. Miller wrote:
> > > Or did Solaris accidently return 8K always in some version of the
> > > Solaris libc? I don't see how this is possible, as applications
> >
> > No that wasn't the case. The case Bart
Eric Lowe wrote:
> David S. Miller wrote:
> > Or did Solaris accidently return 8K always in some version of the
> > Solaris libc? I don't see how this is possible, as applications
>
> No that wasn't the case. The case Bart mentioned was one, an app was
> creating a unmapped zone around a segment
10 matches
Mail list logo
