From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261724AbUEQUu1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 May 2004 16:50:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261862AbUEQUu1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 May 2004 16:50:27 -0400 Received: from mail.tmr.com ([216.238.38.203]:49668 "EHLO gatekeeper.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261724AbUEQUuK (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 May 2004 16:50:10 -0400 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Path: not-for-mail From: Bill Davidsen Newsgroups: mail.linux-kernel Subject: Re: 2.6.6-mm2 Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 16:52:20 -0400 Organization: TMR Associates, Inc Message-ID: References: <20040513032736.40651f8e.akpm@osdl.org> <20040513114520.A8442@infradead.org> <20040513035134.2e9013ea.akpm@osdl.org> <20040513121206.A8620@infradead.org> <20040513042540.073478ea.akpm@osdl.org> <20040513131842.GC22202@fs.tum.de> <1084455572.2583.395.camel@watt.suse.com> <20040513140939.GF22202@fs.tum.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: gatekeeper.tmr.com 1084826805 21686 192.168.12.100 (17 May 2004 20:46:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@tmr.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031208 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: <20040513140939.GF22202@fs.tum.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 09:39:32AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > >>On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 09:18, Adrian Bunk wrote: >> >>>On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 04:25:40AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >>> >>>>... >>>>Wim explained that any application changes now won't be widely deployed for >>>>another year. During that period the ability to run existing Oracle setups >>>>requires that hugepage allocation be available to unprivileged >>>>applications. >>>>... >>>>It means that if people install a kernel.org machine on their database >>>>server, the database *just won't work*. This is not good for those users, >>>>for the kernel developers or for Linux's reputation in general. >>>>... >>> >>>That sounds silly when talking about Oracle. >>> >>>Oracle says: >>> Which Kernels are supported? >>> >>> Oracle does not support modified or recompiled kernels. Recompiled >>> kernels are not supported with or without source modifications. >>> >>> >>>I doubt there are many "existing Oracle setups" that will risk to lose >>>all Oracle support by installing a different kernel. >>> >> >>No, I doubt so as well. Then again, why force them into a vendor >>kernel? At the very least, it would be nice to be able to benchmark >>vanilla against the vendors. >>... > > > I think I recall times when code contributions to the kernel were only > judged by their quality and not by the needs of some non-free apps or > what vendors did. > > Either my memory is wrong, or these times are gone now... I don't see that "quality" and "what vendors did" are mutually exclusive. What I don't see is why you think that having a capability control this is a bad thing. It would seem to be exactly the type of thing capabilities address, giving a selected bit of permission to a trusted application. -- -bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me