On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 10:34:24AM -0700, Bart Smaalders wrote:
> >>If the type IDs in genunix change, I assume its elfhash changes.
> >>Likewise, if the dependent modules change, their elfhashes will
> >>change as well.
> >
> >As long as you're aware that this will happen to *every* ON module on
John Levon wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 08:20:43PM -0700, Bart Smaalders wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps it would be more productive if I ask you how you see this
>>> working. In particular, what changes are you going to make to the
>>> relevant parts of the kernel Makefiles?
>> There will be no changes
Philip Brown wrote:
> I'd like to see if I'm properly understanding what you wrote here, Bart,
>
>
> Bart Smaalders wrote:
>> There will be no changes in the kernel makefiles in terms of building
>> the kernel. Packages will be delivered to a repo rather than
>> being created on disk
>>
>> I
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 07:55:07AM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> > Another downside worth mentioning is that ON modules will retain their
> > special status - no other kernel module is allowed to use CTF
> > uniquification, with the performance overhead that implies.
>
> Only ON binaries are a
I'd like to see if I'm properly understanding what you wrote here, Bart,
Bart Smaalders wrote:
>
> There will be no changes in the kernel makefiles in terms of building
> the kernel. Packages will be delivered to a repo rather than
> being created on disk
>
> If the type IDs in genunix cha
John Levon wrote:
> Another downside worth mentioning is that ON modules will retain their
> special status - no other kernel module is allowed to use CTF
> uniquification, with the performance overhead that implies.
Only ON binaries are allowed to use CTF *at all*, but this isn't
the place for th
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 08:20:43PM -0700, Bart Smaalders wrote:
> >Perhaps it would be more productive if I ask you how you see this
> >working. In particular, what changes are you going to make to the
> >relevant parts of the kernel Makefiles?
>
> There will be no changes in the kernel makefiles
John Levon wrote:
> If you build the exact same source files with an identical CBE, the CTF
> will be the same. Anything that changes the type IDs of genunix require
> either refreshing all dependent modules, or some labelling scheme as is
> currently used.
>
> Perhaps it would be more productive
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 09:51:17AM -0700, Bart Smaalders wrote:
> >Well, it's a little more fundamental than that - without *some* labelling,
> >every kernel change (that is, every new pkg revision of genunix) means
> >every kernel module is rebuilt and re-issued too.
>
> There are a lot of kerne
John Levon wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 08:49:43AM -0700, Bart Smaalders wrote:
>
>>> Has someone thought through the implications of the IPS approach on
>>> the CTF parts of the kernel build? (See
>>> http://blogs.sun.com/levon/entry/reducing_ctf_overhead if you need
>>> context)
>>> For the
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 08:49:43AM -0700, Bart Smaalders wrote:
> >Has someone thought through the implications of the IPS approach on
> >the CTF parts of the kernel build? (See
> >http://blogs.sun.com/levon/entry/reducing_ctf_overhead if you need
> >context)
>
> >For the sake of kmdb and crash d
Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Bart Smaalders wrote:
>> John Levon wrote:
>>> Has someone thought through the implications of the IPS approach on
>>> the CTF parts of the kernel build? (See
>>> http://blogs.sun.com/levon/entry/reducing_ctf_overhead if you need
>>> context)
>>
>> From the referenced blog
> From: Bart Smaalders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> John Levon wrote:
> > Has someone thought through the implications of the IPS approach on
> > the CTF parts of the kernel build? (See
> > http://blogs.sun.com/levon/entry/reducing_ctf_overhead if you need
> > context)
>
> From the referenced blog:
>
Bart Smaalders wrote:
> John Levon wrote:
>> Has someone thought through the implications of the IPS approach on
>> the CTF parts of the kernel build? (See
>> http://blogs.sun.com/levon/entry/reducing_ctf_overhead if you need
>> context)
>
> From the referenced blog:
>
>> For the sake of kmdb an
John Levon wrote:
> Has someone thought through the implications of the IPS approach on
> the CTF parts of the kernel build? (See
> http://blogs.sun.com/levon/entry/reducing_ctf_overhead if you need
> context)
From the referenced blog:
> For the sake of kmdb and crash dumps, the CTF data for eac
Has someone thought through the implications of the IPS approach on
the CTF parts of the kernel build? (See
http://blogs.sun.com/levon/entry/reducing_ctf_overhead if you need
context)
regards,
john
___
pkg-discuss mailing list
pkg-discuss@opensolaris.or
16 matches
Mail list logo
