Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 6 Nov 1997 13:02:24 -0700 (MST) | From | teunis <> | Subject | Re: Cyrix patch : Proposal? |
| |
On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Andre Derrick Balsa wrote:
> Hello, > > Teunis, I would *not* want to see the (fixed) 2.1.39 Cyrix patch go into > the kernel source, as it stands now. > > I have a simple technical reason, and a more "philosophical" reason for > this. > > Technical: no performance gains > ========== > Philosophical: kernel pollution vs. user-space utility > ==============
An excellent commentary. This was one of the arguments I was looking for actually - I wanted to know why it WASN'T already included.
As things sit: - the 2.1.6x VGER snapshot has some of the cyrix patch present, so this will make it into the kernel :) - Cyrix _DETECTION_ is absolutely necessary, regardless of any other features. - For the performance/paging/... changes you're right - this patch does not address those properly. But it does address them at all which prepares the way for a formal policy. Not all of the processor features are possible to enable in userspace (VSPM + caching changes as examples IIRC)
I could get angry at cyrix for making a nonstandard detection policy, but there's no point. Their cpu line is compatible with the i586 line and it would be best if compilers could recognize such a processor to tailor programs for efficiency.
Not everyone writes/uses software for distribution. (if that were the case i386 support would be the only thing necessary... for intel processor support...)
I wonder how many of these things are going to appear again for other CPU clone manufacturers? (eg: alpha cpu clones)
As a sort of completion : Sorry about the mess on linux-kernel - I didn't realize when I posted that cyrix support had made it into 2.1.6x vger :) ... Looking forward to the remerger of mainstream kernel and vger again...
G'day, eh? :) - Teunis
| |