2.6.22 rebase.

[Nigel Cunningham]

Hi.

On Wednesday 11 July 2007 10:53:06 Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 10:07:05AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
>  > Hi.
>  > 
>  > On Wednesday 11 July 2007 07:34:10 Dave Jones wrote:
>  > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 09:48:57PM +0200, dragoran wrote:
>  > > 
>  > >  > * Some of the experimental bits (like tickless), I've left enabled
>  > >  > >   right now.  Depending on how things look from the first round
>  > >  > >   of testing will decide whether we keep it on for release.
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > what about the x86_64 hpet issue? (or is x86_64 tickless not 
included 
>  > yet?)
>  > 
>  > No, it's not in vanilla yet, and we don't have the patch in our tree.
> 
> actually x86-64 tickless has been in rawhide about 2 weeks, and is now
> in this rebase for FC6/F7.  Whether we roll with it for a proper update
> depends on how it fares during it's trial in updates-testing.
> So far the forced-hpet part was the only bit that's caused trouble
> afaics, so with that disabled, it should be (hopefully) boring.

Ah. Now I see it. I was looking for 'hz', not 'hires-timers'. I haven't tried 
forced hpet support yet. Am I right in thinking that's only for Intels? 
(Mine's an AMD based Mitac).
 
> Also, Thomas is usually really on the ball at fixing up silly stuff, so
> if the initial cut doesn't look so good, it shouldn't be too long before
> we can get it back into peoples hands.

Yeah. He was really good to deal with when I had some interaction with him.
 
>  > FWIW, I'm running x86_64 tickless. I had some initial issues with 
hibernating 
>  > and suspending, but worked them through with Thomas. It shouldn't cause 
any 
>  > issues on that front if/when it does go in.
> 
> Once this is out there, and the worse of the fallout has been dealt with
> we really should try and organise some concerted effort to getting
> suspend/resume regressions under control, because since FC5, we've more
> or less just ignored those bugs due to being buried in other stuff.

That would be good. I've been trying to get some of them dealt with, but one 
day a week makes it slow going. Hughsie has been having a go too, so we're 
making progress. Nevertheless....

Regards,

Nigel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-kernel-list/attachments/20070711/e2868f3c/attachment.sig>