On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 17:16 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 21:57:26 +0000 David Woodhouse dwmw2@infradead.org wrote:
On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 12:47 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
But I really think we should be eating our own dog food here.
Your employer and mine also care about people who use 64KiB pages... :)
I don't speak for my employer in any way shape or form. My comments are my own and do not represent those of my employer. <Insert random other ways of saying I speak for me alone and not my employer>. Fedora is done in my spare time.
Yeah, sorry -- that was poorly phrased. I didn't mean that we should be pursuing 64KiB pages because we are inappropriately beholden to our employers -- it was more an observation that some poor bugger at some point is going to have to deal with the issue anyway.
And since we're already _doing_ it (and mostly, we already _did_ it to get FC6 out the door), and since it's helping us find real bugs on all architectures, maybe we should just keep doing it. I don't recall a single case of a program failing on a 4KiB-page kernel because it was built on a 64KiB-page kernel, although I can certainly imagine how it might happen.
Yes, there is the issue of (organised and documented) access to test machines; we need to deal that with whatever the page size, and the test machines need to match the builders.
Besides, my employer is probably more concerned with the fact that Fedora 9 Alpha (and likely Beta) doesn't even install on their class of hardware because of Anaconda/HAL refusing to see the disks on Power6 and LPARs (as well as PS3).
Christ, isn't that fixed yet?
/me looks... er, did we not even assign the corresponding bug to HAL? Or is there a separate HAL bug other than 431045?