Re: Referring what kernel-images to build to the technical committee?
RC> There is no need for a MTTR specific kernel. MTTR is not really
RC> needed as there is no software written which is unable to run
RC> without it. Our goal here should be compatibility with software.
RC> MTTR can increase speed significantly in certain situations, but
RC> there's lots of other ways of doing that for less effort which we
RC> aren't supporting. MTTR can allow you to work around broken
RC> hardware. But we can't provide enough kernels to support all
RC> combinations of broken hardware (I am sure that I could find a
RC> list of a dozen boolean options which are all needed to be in one
RC> state or another for various broken hardware - we can't provide
RC> 2^12 kernels).
I think you are wrong about 'MTTR is not really needed'. One good
example is aviplay (player for avi files). It perfomance is seriously
affected by MTTR option. This fact is mentioned in its docs and I've
seen myself *significant* difference in its perfomance when I've
compiled kernel with MTTR option. Probably perfomance of simular
programs will be affected too.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| Ilya Martynov (http://martynov.org/) |
| GnuPG 1024D/323BDEE6 D7F7 561E 4C1D 8A15 8E80 E4AE BE1A 53EB 323B DEE6 |
| AGAVA Software Company (http://www.agava.com/) |
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Reply to: