On Thu, 06 May 2004 11:18:10 -0400
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:

> On Wed, 05 May 2004 23:51:36 +0200, =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel said:
> 
> > I disagree.  -mm is the testing ground for -linus.  If this patch
> > would only break the nvidia module, I couldn't care less.
> 
> OK.. I need to clarify - I'm OK on the patch being *in -mm* precisely *because*
> it's a testing ground.  Anybody who's running a -mm kernel should have the
> technical savvy to deal with the issue by reverting the one patch in question,
> and to recover if it eats their file system (Yes, I'm running 2.6.6-rc3-mm2 and
> the NVidia driver as I type.  No, making it work wasn't a problem.  Yes, I spin
> everything needed to rebuild out to CD/RW at least once a week, just because it
> *is* a -mm kernel. ;)
> 
> It's a Good Idea to do this in -mm, to flush out all the binary modules that
> are known to have issues with this (have we identified anybody other than NVidia
> that actually *has* a problem)?
I use 2.6.6-rc3  w/ 4k-stack enabled (-mm is a bit too experimental for my taste ;) ), ATIs binary-module is working w/o problems.
but IIRC I had to disable REGPARMS.

> 
> It's probably a Bad Idea to push this to Linus before the vendors that have
> significant market-impact issues (again - anybody other than NVidia here?)
> have gotten their stuff cleaned up...
> 
> 


-- 
---------------------------------------
Malte Schröder
MalteSch@gmx.de
ICQ# 68121508
---------------------------------------