Messages in this thread |  | | From | David Woodhouse <> | Subject | Re: Development Setups | Date | Fri, 05 Oct 2001 09:02:03 +0100 |
| |
adam.keys@engr.smu.edu said: > I was thinking of starting with a modern machine for developing/ > compiling on, and then older machine(s) for testing. This way I > would not risk losing data if I oops or somesuch.
With journalling filesystems you needn't worry _too_ much about losing data; depending of course on what you're hacking on. Having two separate boxen for development and testing is mostly valuable because you can keep working when you break it - it doesn't take your entire desktop environment down with it.
adam.keys@engr.smu.edu said: > Which brings me to the final question. Is there any reason to choose > architecture A over architecture B for any reason besides > arch-specific development in the kernel or for device drivers?
If you're developing device drivers and have the choice, pick something esoteric to enforce good behaviour. Something which does out-of-order stores, has non-cache-coherent DMA, is big-endian and preferably 64-bit. I think both mips64 and sparc64 boards can meet all those criteria - if not, get as close as you can.
-- dwmw2
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |