| |||||||||||||
NETIF_F_LLTX and race conditionsNETIF_F_LLTX and race conditionsPosted Feb 3, 2005 6:02 UTC (Thu) by jwb (guest, #15467)Parent article: NETIF_F_LLTX and race conditions With these network locking changes, and a brand new SCSI layer, I can hardly wait to roll out the new stable kernel on all my productions machines on the day it is released!
(Log in to post comments)
NETIF_F_LLTX and race conditions Posted Feb 3, 2005 15:40 UTC (Thu) by melauer (guest, #2438) [Link] > With these network locking changes, and a brand new SCSI layer, I can> hardly wait to roll out the new stable kernel on all my productions > machines on the day it is released!
The definition of "stable kernel" has changed. The latest kernel release in an even-numbered series is not the "stable kernel" anymore. Now that releases which just fix bugs (e.g. security holes) and releases which add features have been thoroughly conflated, that's the way it's gotta be. The latest kernel release from your disto or hardware vendor is the "stable kernel" now. Presumably it's an older kernel with backported bugfixes.
stable kernel Posted Feb 4, 2005 0:48 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] Presumably it's an older kernel with backported bugfixes.And that is, incidentally, probably based on 2.4.
stable kernel Posted Feb 6, 2005 1:17 UTC (Sun) by barryn (subscriber, #5996) [Link] > And that is, incidentally, probably based on 2.4.
Not if you're running any of the following distributions (and some others too):
Fedora Core 2 or 3
2.6 is slowly but steadily taking over...
stable kernel Posted Feb 6, 2005 3:38 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] I presume you're saying that the distributions mentioned are providing stabilized 2.6-based kernels, or recommending them, or abandonning support of 2.4-based kernels.But I still maintain that if you find a stable Linux kernel, it's more likely to be based on 2.4, because these 2.6-based ones simply aren't stable in the way we got used to in the 2.4 days. The code in 2.6-based kernels is substantially newer and less exposed than in the 2.4-based ones. I'm still hopeful that the distributions will stick with an old 2.6 level and let it stabilize, but so far I haven't seen the evidence that they will. If they frequently "upgrade" by grabbing all of Linus's recent changes, we'll still have to look to something 2.4-based for any kind of stability.
Stability of release kernels Posted Feb 3, 2005 19:51 UTC (Thu) by shane (subscriber, #3335) [Link] If you need to run the absolute latest kernel, and care about stability, then you need to set up a test environment and test each release before putting it into production. This is true no matter what pre-release testing procedure is built into the kernel release cycle - chances are no kernel developer has your production environment as a desktop machine!
If you're lazy, you wait for a kernel to age, like a fine wine.
Or you can do what most people do, and use the kernel that comes with your distribution.
Stability of release kernels Posted Feb 4, 2005 0:54 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] If you're lazy, you wait for a kernel to age, like a fine wine. Aging doesn't make the bugs go away. And bugs are always there. The kind of aging you're talking about happens to a series of kernels, not a particular one, and is more precisely called "stabilizing." That doesn't happen any more in kernel.org kernel series, but does in some Linux distribution kernel series.
Stability of release kernels Posted Feb 5, 2005 2:45 UTC (Sat) by set (guest, #4788) [Link] Another choice would be either Alan Cox' ac kernel series,
or Andreas Salomon's series:
(from his first 2.6.10-as1 announcement:)
|
|||||||||||||