[parisc-linux] Re: [parisc-linux-cvs] linux grundler

[Matthew Wilcox <willy@debian.org>]

On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 08:10:14PM -0700, Grant Grundler wrote:
> Just drop that in debian/patches before building the debs.
> That patch applies clean to the binutils for unstable.
> I don't even pretend to understand how to properly build
> debian packages, much less binutils or "cross release" builds.
> That's why I made the tarball for "testing".

OK.  It's not really hard, but I don't mind doing it.  It's not like
this is a regular occurrence.  It's building now; when I've finished
I'll upload it to unofficial-debs and people will be able to apt-get
install it from there.

> I don't care to find out the hard way.
> I'd rather just comply with the architecture and not worry about it.
> If someone can demonstrate a perf advantage or issue, I'll be
> more receptive.

Sure.  When someone's trying to implement futexes, this may prove critical..

> > One final point.... up till now, we've been telling people it's OK to
> > run kernels configured for PA1.1 on PA2.0 processors.  This patch says
> > to me that's not safe.
> 
> Only for SMP. I think for UP the rule still holds.

Agree.  That was implicit in the kernel list i gave later, but I should've
stated it explicitly.

> Unfortunately yes.
> 
> OTOH, PA20 SMP still hasn't proven stable so maybe it's not worth
> doing at the moment either.  Once PA20 SMP is stable, we could drop
> the 64-bit UP kernels since most systems that *require* 64-bit are SMP.

Sure, but there's a measurable performance difference if you compile out
spinlocks

-- 
"It's not Hollywood.  War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or
victory, it is about death.  I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies.
Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject?" -- Robert Fisk