RE: [Devil-linux-develop] useful patches to a 2.4.21 kernel

[Dean N. <di...@ti...>]

>Diego Torres wrote:
>> this patches could be useful (at least, there are *very* useful for me)
>>
>> http://secure.netroedge.com/~lm78/index.html
>>
>>  http://secure.netroedge.com/~lm78/archive/i2c-2.8.0.tar.gz
>>  patches for i2c/lmsensors. don't work for kernels 2.5/2.6. it gives lots
of drivers for hardware sensors (cpu temp, cpu fan speed, etc...) available
on today motherboards.
>>
>>  http://secure.netroedge.com/~lm78/archive/lm_sensors-2.8.0.tar.gz
>>  userspace applications for installing & configuring the sensors.
>
>I would vote for including those.

Yes, -IF- we decided to run a monitor on one of the virtual consoles (maybe
#9?), like we today with procinfo.

>>
>> http://www.sistina.com/products_lvm.htm
>> http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
>>  of course, if someone wants to do serious raid across several
disks/partitions, he will probably use the device mapper patches + lvm2
patches to kernel.
>>
>>  ftp://ftp.sistina.com/pub/LVM2/tools/LVM2.0-latest.tgz
>>  user space tools
>>
>>  ftp://ftp.sistina.com/pub/LVM2/device-mapper/device-mapper-latest.tgz
>>  kernel patches for 2.4.21.
>
>Should we switch to LVM2 ? How stable is it?

LVM2 was selected over EVMS to replace LVM for the 2.6 kernel.  It probably
shouldn't be considered stable at this point.  In fact, they are still
trying to trace down Raid induced file corruption in the 2.6 kernel series.

>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/acpi
>>  useful with newer or modern pcs, mainly because 2.4.21 is obsolete in
acpi terms...
>
>True. Add some point we have to support it, the question is do we want
>to do it in the next release.

I would vote to ship the V1.0 WITHOUT the ACPI enhancements, in order to
actually SHIP V1.0!

Now, I am as guilty of feature creap as anybody, but at somepoint we need to
start looking at putting a stake in the ground with what we have, close up
the bugs, and mark it V1.0.

Just my thoughts....

Dean Nedelman
TimeLord Consulting