On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 10:11:45PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote: > On 01-08-03 Alain Schroeder wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 10:19:48AM -0700, Rupa Schomaker wrote: > > > Eduard Bloch <blade@debian.org> writes: > > > > > > > Package: wnpp > > > > Version: N/A; reported 2001-08-03 > > > > Severity: wishlist > > > > > > > > Contents: > > > > Kernel Debugger Patch > > > > (Port from SGI, License: apparently GPL, needs further investigation) > > > > Journaling Support Patch (License: GPL) > > > > > > SGI has something to do with ext3? > > > > > Not really. The Developers only use the Kernel Debugger from SGI to > > debug ext3. ext3 currently does not work without it since the patches > > against a kernel with that patch. > > Hm, since when does the ext3 patch really need the kernel debugger? The > first ext3 patches didn't need that and the current one from > http://www.uow.edu.au/~andrewm/linux/ext3/ don't seem to need it to? So > would somebody please explain in details why the kernel debugger is > needed? > Well... That URI gives you the patches for 2.4. The latest patches for 2.2 were based on the 2.2 kernel with the kdb. The kdb patch won't be needed, but it would be some work to get ext3 running without the kdb patch, I guess - but it's work that can be done without being a kernel hacker. But in general I would say the 2.4 kernel patches would be more usefull, since everybody wants to use 2.4. Both patches work fine for me... (And the 2.2er also works great on m68k) Bye, Alain -- The box said "Requires Win95, NT, or better," and so I installed Linux.
Attachment:
pgpwQ4DR4q38j.pgp
Description: PGP signature