Where is 2.6.32?

[john wendel]

On 12/31/2009 12:14 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Konstantin Svist wrote:
>> On 12/31/2009 09:10 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>>> And leaves you with no Fedora patches and the disk performance
>>> regression issues of 2.6.32. Also a tainted kernel which some
>>> developers will ignore if you get a trace, etc.
>>
>> I thought it's only tainted if there are non-GPL modules compiled in.
>> For instance, I saw the tainted message whenever I insmod'ed fglrx driver
>>
> You're right, I am assuming he was talking about the nvidia modules
> which are not GPL, when he mentioned 2.6.32.2+Nvidia. So it would only
> me tainted if he wanted to have graphics. Or the licensing may have
> changed, things are not the same for long.
>


Who needs the Fedora patches? I'm not missing them here. Can you tell me 
exactly the patches I'm missing and what they would do for me? If these 
patches are so valuable, why aren't they submitted upstream so the world 
can benefit. Maybe because Linus doesn't want them?

I haven't noticed any disk performance regression/problem. Maybe I don't 
beat it hard enough. hdparm -Tt shows 60.84 MB/s with the fedora kernel 
and 61.09 MB/s with my kernel. I know there's a CFS throughput problem, 
but that's easily fixed.

My Fedora kernel would also be tainted, since I have to run the Nvidia 
driver in any case.

I don't see any down side to running my own kernel. Plus I save 8MB of 
kernel memory (enough to negate the bloated Nvidia driver), and I enjoy 
the tweaking.

Best wishes in the new year!

John