2.4: Any plans for new bootmem and waitq patches?

2.4: Any plans for new bootmem and waitq patches?

[Dieter Nützel]

Hello,

I did some tests with bootmem-2.4.17-pre6 and waitq-2.4.17-mainline-1 (don't 
know who wrote it in the first place) on top of 2.4.17-preX with good 
results.

Are there any plans to get this into 2.4 mainline?

Thanks,
	Dieter

BTW waitq-2.4.17-mainline-1 do not apply to latest kernel versions.
-- 
Dieter Nützel
Graduate Student, Computer Science

University of Hamburg
Department of Computer Science
@home: Dieter.Nuetzel@hamburg.de

Re: 2.4: Any plans for new bootmem and waitq patches?

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 12:13:53AM +0200, Dieter N?tzel wrote:
> Hello,
> I did some tests with bootmem-2.4.17-pre6 and waitq-2.4.17-mainline-1 (don't 
> know who wrote it in the first place) on top of 2.4.17-preX with good 
> results.
> Are there any plans to get this into 2.4 mainline?
> Thanks,
> 	Dieter
> BTW waitq-2.4.17-mainline-1 do not apply to latest kernel versions.

Well, I wrote both.

The bootmem patch's benefits are not very visible (if at all) for
machines other than simulators and some unusual large systems. I
am not pressing for its inclusion in mainline for the basic reason
that what it addresses does not affect the systems I'm using anymore,
if only because the systems changed. =)

The waitqueue patch has been integrated into both mainline 2.4 and 2.5.

Cheers,
Bill

Re: 2.4: Any plans for new bootmem and waitq patches?

[Daniel Phillips]

On Wednesday 24 April 2002 02:32, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> The bootmem patch's benefits are not very visible (if at all) for
> machines other than simulators and some unusual large systems. I
> am not pressing for its inclusion in mainline for the basic reason
> that what it addresses does not affect the systems I'm using anymore,
> if only because the systems changed. =)

What changed exactly?

-- 
Daniel

Re: 2.4: Any plans for new bootmem and waitq patches?

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Wednesday 24 April 2002 02:32, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> The bootmem patch's benefits are not very visible (if at all) for
>> machines other than simulators and some unusual large systems. I
>> am not pressing for its inclusion in mainline for the basic reason
>> that what it addresses does not affect the systems I'm using anymore,
>> if only because the systems changed. =)

On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 11:42:43AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> What changed exactly?

I don't use the affected systems anymore. I moved from one group to
another within my company just before the beginning of the year.


Cheers,
Bill