[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#556631: KSM support



Package: libc6-dev
Version: 2.10.1-7
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch

Hi,

It would be nice if we could ship a glibc with KSM support, which is
very useful for people running virtualization environments. I proposed a
patch at:
http://www.eglibc.org/archives/patches/msg00784.html

But at:
http://www.eglibc.org/archives/patches/msg00793.html

I was told to wait for upstream GNU glibc support, for a routine merge.

KSM will be present in the 2.6.32 kernel, which is going to be released
soon. It might be nice if Debian could include this patch earlier, since
for us eglibc is the default libc, so that as soon as that kernel is out
and the kvm/qemu people package a version with KSM support, the
compilers will pick up the flag and KSM will work in unstable/squeeze.
(qemu/kvm code has an #ifdef which means that they will be compiled
without kvm if glibc doesn't have the flag)

Thanks,

Guido

-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.31.6rx00 (SMP w/2 CPU cores; PREEMPT)
Locale: LANG=en_IE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_IE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

Versions of packages libc6-dev depends on:
ii  libc-dev-bin                  2.10.1-7   GNU C Library: Development binarie
ii  libc6                         2.10.1-7   GNU C Library: Shared libraries
ii  linux-libc-dev                2.6.30-8   Linux support headers for userspac

Versions of packages libc6-dev recommends:
ii  gcc [c-compiler]          4:4.3.3-9+nmu1 The GNU C compiler
ii  gcc-4.2 [c-compiler]      4.2.4-6        The GNU C compiler
ii  gcc-4.3 [c-compiler]      4.3.4-5        The GNU C compiler

Versions of packages libc6-dev suggests:
pn  glibc-doc                     <none>     (no description available)
ii  manpages-dev                  3.22-1     Manual pages about using GNU/Linux

-- no debconf information



Reply to: