Why is default sparc kernel 2.4?

[snowsquirrel]

The default kernel for x86 is 2.6. Is the gentoo-sparc-optimized 2.4 kernel any faster than the 2.6 development kernel? I realize that there is an issue with kernels getting larger than 3.5MB, but I don't think that will be a problem for me, as I have a barebones Ultra 10.

I just did an emerge sparc-sources and noticed that it was the 2.4 kernel. I have been using 2.6 for a year on x86, and would rather not go back unless there is good reason.

Comments?

[Ferris]

Sparc is moving toward 2.6.x for the kernel. Right now, it's a question of stability across the
product line. Depending on what you are running, kernel 2.6 might or might not be apprporiate, but
if you are talking about a new installation on sparc64 (like U2, U10, U60) it would probably do fine,
so far as I know. (For example, 2.6.6 is quite stable for me on a couple U60-SMP systems.)

For more information, please see the How-To documents at http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm/docs/sparc-2.6.x/. And following the kernel discussions on the #gentoo-sparc IRC channel might be useful for you as well. If you check there or on the gentoo-sparc mailing list, ciaranm or gustavoz will have more current information than I do; I don't play around in the kernel.

Hope this helps.
Regards,

[snowsquirrel]

thanks, I have run into some trouble during the install, trying to get the kernel compiled. Compiler seems to not recognize some of the user defined types in include/asm/signal.h and include/asm/signinfo.h. I have gcc-sparc64-3.3.3 installed, not the egcs your link mentions. I am going to try with one of the premade configs from the link and see if that helps.


Thanks,

~S