Linux Kernel 2.6.20 Released

diegocgteleline.es writes "After two months of development, Linux 2.6.20 has been released. This release includes two different virtualization implementations: KVM: full-virtualization capabilities using Intel/AMD virtualization extensions and a paravirtualization implementation usable by different hypervisors. Additionally, 2.6.20 includes PS3 support, a fault injection debugging feature, UDP-lite support, better per-process IO accounting, relative atime, relocatable x86 kernel, some x86 microoptimizations, lockless radix-tree readside, shared pagetables for hugetbl, and many other things. Read the list of changes for more details."

Comments

Relocatable on x86?

[MBCook]

What is the purpose of being relocatable on x86? I don't remember reading anything about that so what is the point? Is that already possible on other architectures or is x86 the first (as it often is)? I realize the point of making user programs relocatable, but the kernel? The only thing I can think of is that this either has to do with paravirtualization (to speed it up when the kernel isn't at the base of address space), or for replacing the kernel on a running system (can't remember the name, but the idea would be to load the new kernel, transfer into it, then copy it down to the base of memory as you're executing).

Can any explain this one to me?

Re:Relocatable on x86?

[iluvcapra]

Every time you say "RTFM n00b," God kills a prospective Linux switcher. Cheers.

Re:Relocatable on x86?

[shaitand]

That doesn't really apply here. He doesn't sound like a n00b to me. He sounds like a competent individual with a question about the details who was just too damn lazy to actually follow the link in the summary for those details. I also helpfully advised him that those details were readable and not a bland changelog litany in case he assumed that is what he would find and skipped it for that reason.

Re:Relocatable on x86?

[gkhan1]

Since pointing people to the relevent document is apparently flamebait

No, but being rude and obnoxious can certainly qualify as flamebait. If you don't want to be modded down, learn some civility. And by the way, bitching about moderation is off-topic.

OSX vs Vista vs Linux

[derrickh]

When Apple released its lastest OS, they talked about all the pretty colors it has, and the cool music you can listen to.

When Microsoft released Vista, they talked about all the pretty colors it has, and the cool music you can listen to.

The latest release of Linux is trumpeting virtualization, hypervisors, microoptimizations, and something about a lockless radix-tree.

Nuff said.

D

Re:OSX vs Vista vs Linux

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

When Apple released its lastest OS, they talked about all the pretty colors it has, and the cool music you can listen to.

When Microsoft released Vista, they talked about all the pretty colors it has, and the cool music you can listen to.

The latest release of Linux is trumpeting virtualization, hypervisors, microoptimizations, and something about a lockless radix-tree.

Do you think that might be because "linux" the kernel does not even have a user interface with or without pretty colors nor a music player?

6*9==42

[gd2shoe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker's_Guid e_to_the_Galaxy

6*9==42

"What do you get if you multiply six by nine?" Arthur then comments, "I've always said there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe."

(ironically, 6*9 does == 42 in base 13...)

/. Groupthink?

[NaCh0]

Weird... The other responses to your comment all take it as a knock against linux. I read your post as great insight into the reason why I use linux and not Vista or a Mac. Substance beats out fruity color schemes every day in my book.