Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755211AbYH0RxA (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:53:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754648AbYH0Rws (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:52:48 -0400 Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:59625 "EHLO mail2.shareable.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754636AbYH0Rwr (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:52:47 -0400 Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:51:53 +0100 From: Jamie Lokier To: Bernd Petrovitsch Cc: Parag Warudkar , Linus Torvalds , Adrian Bunk , Rusty Russell , "Alan D. Brunelle" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kernel Testers List , Andrew Morton , Arjan van de Ven , Ingo Molnar , linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Bug #11342] Linux 2.6.27-rc3: kernel BUG at mm/vmalloc.c - bisected Message-ID: <20080827175152.GA27491@shareable.org> References: <20080826205916.GB11734@cs181140183.pp.htv.fi> <1219827609.30209.29.camel@spike.firmix.at> <1219843032.30209.51.camel@spike.firmix.at> <20080827154805.GA25387@shareable.org> <1219855121.30209.112.camel@spike.firmix.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1219855121.30209.112.camel@spike.firmix.at> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1787 Lines: 42 Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: > > 32MB no-MMU ARM boards which people run new things and attach new > > devices to rather often - without making new hardware. Volume's too > > low per individual application to get new hardware designed and made. > > Yes, you may have several products on the same hardware with somewhat > differing requirements (or not). But that is much less than a general > purpose system IMHO. It is, but the idea that small embedded systems go through a 'all components are known, drivers are known, test and if it passes it's shippable' does not always apply. > > I'm seriously thinking of forwarding porting the 4 year old firmware > > from 2.4.26 to 2.6.current, just to get new drivers and capabilities. > > That sounds reasonable (and I never meant maintaining the old system > infinitely. Sounds reasonable, but it's vetoed for anticipated time and cost, compared with backporting on demand. Fair enough, since 2.6.current doesn't support ARM no-MMU last I heard ('soon'?). On the other hand, the 2.6 anti-fragmentation patches, including latest SLUB stuff, ironically meant to help big machines, sound really appealing for my current problem and totally unrealistic to backport... > ACK. We avoid MMU-less hardware too - especially since there is enough > hardware with a MMU around. I can't emphasise enough how much difference MMU makes to Linux userspace. It's practically: MMU = standard Linux (with less RAM), have everything. No-MMU = lots of familiar 'Linux' things not available or break. -- Jamie -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/