Re: Between a rock & a hard place, need monolithic 2.4.2x kernel for sun4m
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 18:13:30 +0200
romain@dolbeau.org (Romain Dolbeau) wrote:
> > I have sincere doubts whether there are more than a handfull of
> > supported configurations that actually need this fix, if any at all.
>
> I don't think support for SM100 should be any concern to aynone, except
> for historical interest - in which case SunOS 4.1.4 will do SMP
> reasonably well on them. Anyone else should scrounge better, faster,
> more reliable SMBus modules (except maybe the SM20 or SM30, which are
> nearly as crappy as the SM100, but *are* v8 compliant).
>
> All other sun4m machines have v8 compliant CPUs, AFAICR.
Right, so, what I'm wondering is if we're requiring a backported kernel
upgrade before upgrading a sun4m machine to sarge because there's an
outside chance they might be using a cpu that we don't support in sarge but
incidentally needs a kernel fix for current libc.
The real question is whether there are any sparc v8 cpus that don't
support umul. If there aren't, we should fix the libc6 deb and alter the
documentation.
I also question the wisdom of requiring an initrd to boot with the
sun4cdm kernel image. I am not aware of any sun4cdm machines (other than
the javastations) that have a storage medium other than scsi that are
supported by linux, and very few that have a scsi controller other than
esp. And even then, there's only the pti scsi driver available.
Above and beyond that, between sunlance and hme i don't think it would
make the kernel much bigger at all to cover the vast majority of built-in
ethernet devices.
Reply to: