From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261503AbTJWCkO (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:40:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261575AbTJWCkN (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:40:13 -0400 Received: from ssa8.serverconfig.com ([209.51.129.179]:54187 "EHLO ssa8.serverconfig.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261503AbTJWCkI (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:40:08 -0400 From: "Joseph D. Wagner" To: Dave Jones Subject: Re: FEATURE REQUEST: Specific Processor Optimizations on x86 Architecture Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:35:22 +0600 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200310221855.15925.theman@josephdwagner.info> <200310221947.45996.theman@josephdwagner.info> <20031023012350.GI26476@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20031023012350.GI26476@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200310222135.22968.theman@josephdwagner.info> X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - ssa8.serverconfig.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - josephdwagner.info Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org First off, thanks Dave for having a far more polite and meaningful response to potty-mouth Tim Hockin. >> So what? > You can't use FP code in the kernel. What can't be done today, might be done tommorrow. I've long complained -- in this forum and in others -- that there's a lack of vision, or at least a lack of documented and published vision, when it comes to the future of kernel development. If you're wondering why I don't do it myself, it's because I don't know enough of where the project is headed, and I can't find out because it's not documented. Catch-22. However, this is entirely a separate discussion. I am thinking of future development. I know this point is kind of moot because 2.6 already adopts the change, but that hasn't stopped about a dozen backports of other features to previous versions of the kernel. > You're reading into this far too much. Perhaps I'm reading too much into this from your personal message, and if I have overreacted to your personal message I apologize. However, this isn't the first time I've tried to help out, and deal with, the open source community. The community isn't very welcoming to newcomers which has made me a bit short tempered when dealing with them. > Your proposed change is in part already vetoed (for sound reasons) > for 2.4, and is already included in the development branch > (where such a far-reaching change should be tested). The other part > of your proposal is completely bogus as far as the kernel is concerned. I respectivly disagree with those reasons. -march is gcc flag. If it creates any instability (doubtful), it's really a gcc problem. Throwing it in will light a fire under their @$$ to get their act together. >> If you don't make the change, I will consider it conclusive proof >> that the whole free-as-in-freedom is really just free-as-in-beer. > No amount of 'threats' are going to change this. That's not a threat, Dave. That's a statement of fact. If this change isn't put in, my opinion will be of x. It's a fact that my opinion will be of this nature. A threat would be if I took some sort of action that would be damning to the linux kernel project or open source as a whole, and my opinion -- for what it's worth -- doesn't carry enough weight to be damning to either. Joseph D. Wagner