| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Stable kernel 2.6.20.2
The second stable update to the 2.6.20
kernel is out. "It contains a
metric buttload of bugfixes and security updates, so all 2.6.20 users are
recommended to upgrade." They are not joking: there's about 100
patches in this update.
(Log in to post comments)
Stable kernel 2.6.20.2 Posted Mar 9, 2007 22:46 UTC (Fri) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861) [Link] Man! Even butts are going to the metric system, and the U.S. still can't manage it. We're more lame than butts!
That's embarrassing.
Stable kernel 2.6.20.2 Posted Mar 9, 2007 23:15 UTC (Fri) by alspnost (subscriber, #2763) [Link] Don't worry, in the UK you can still buy 2 metre lengths of 2x2 inch wood. At least you guys have decided one way or the other ;-)
Stable kernel 2.6.20.2 Posted Mar 10, 2007 4:33 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Yep. You guys may think your all scientific with your metric buttloads, but I am happy that we will never let go of our imperial assload.
Stable kernel 2.6.20.2 Posted Mar 12, 2007 17:21 UTC (Mon) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246) [Link] And is the wood really 2" x 2", or is it some other size? Our 2" x 4" boards are really 1.5" x 3.5".
Stable kernel 2.6.20.2 Posted Mar 12, 2007 23:44 UTC (Mon) by sammythesnake (guest, #17693) [Link] The stated sizes are the size the wood is *cut* to, before planing it smooth, which obviously reduces the size a little.
It's a bit like your 10oz steak being weighed before it's cooked, not after...
Cheers & God bless
Stable kernel 2.6.20.2 Posted Mar 13, 2007 0:07 UTC (Tue) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246) [Link] And wood shrinks when it dries. And apparently there's other twists and turns to it. Yeesh!
Stable kernel 2.6.20.2 Posted Mar 9, 2007 23:47 UTC (Fri) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link] Wow, that's a lot bugfixes. Does this mean 2.6.20 isn't that stable (egare many of these regressions?), or are they just hunting a lot of bugs?
Stable kernel 2.6.20.2 Posted Mar 10, 2007 0:12 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] I think it's just that gregkh and chrisw have been busy, backlogged, andturning out -stables for 2.6.18 and 2.6.19, so it's been an awfully long time (OK, about a month) since the last 2.6.20 -stable.
Stable kernel 2.6.20.2 Posted Mar 13, 2007 20:55 UTC (Tue) by chrisw (guest, #27074) [Link] Yes, exactly. We got a bit behind and bogged down.Should be back on a better track now.
Stable kernel 2.6.20.2 Posted Mar 10, 2007 0:16 UTC (Sat) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] I have to agree thats almost enough fixes to say it was a whole new kernel ;).
Stable kernel 2.6.20.2 Posted Mar 10, 2007 0:28 UTC (Sat) by leoc (subscriber, #39773) [Link] I can't speak for anyone else, but I have found 20 to be less stable than 19.
Stable kernel 2.6.20.2 Posted Mar 10, 2007 3:05 UTC (Sat) by ahoogerhuis (subscriber, #4041) [Link] I'm still on 2.6.16.x for anything that doesn't have a very good reason for running anything newer and finding it to be very stable. The bloody edge isn't always that nice.
-A
Cannot stay at 2.6.16.x because... Posted Mar 12, 2007 19:32 UTC (Mon) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link] I can't stay at 2.6.16.x with my laptop - Broadcom bcm43xx needed for my wifi card. If I remember correctly, 2.6.17 was the first to include in-kernel driver support for this chipset. Which brings me to this question: Why is 2.6.16.x getting a bunch of bugfix updates (they're up to 2.6.16.43 now!)? Any reason 2.6.17 didn't get these bugfixes?
bcm43xx Posted Mar 12, 2007 19:43 UTC (Mon) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] bcm43xx support is *almost there*. I still have to load bcm43xx_d80211 and unload it, before loading bcm43xx, in order to get any contact with my ddWRT hub. Looking at the patches, it's amazing how much chip-version fiddling the code has to do to make these things work at all. I'd have thought that with Broadcom actively cooperating there would be less churn.
bcm43xx Posted Mar 13, 2007 16:30 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] It would be great if you post the details to the bcm43xx mailing list (bcm43xx-dev at lists.berlios.de).
Cannot stay at 2.6.16.x because... Posted Mar 13, 2007 5:45 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link] a maintainer stepped up and decided to commit to patching 2.6.16 long-term.
nobody has done this for later versions
Cannot stay at 2.6.16.x because... Posted Mar 13, 2007 9:00 UTC (Tue) by tomas2 (guest, #37038) [Link] "a maintainer stepped up and decided to commit to patching 2.6.16 long-term."
AFAIK it's Adrian Bunk.
I thought back then when I first read about this that Debian would go with this kernel for Etch, but they didn't. Anyone knows why?
Tomas
Stable kernel 2.6.20.2 Posted Mar 10, 2007 12:39 UTC (Sat) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] Not here! While I had an issue with the rcs (the md/RAID-6 unaligned I/Olog spamming due to an update in that system not updating the logging as well), I filed a bug on it, and it was fixed. Also, partly due to the consequences of failure and because it hadn't been working several kernels back when I last tried it, I hadn't tried hibernate for quite awhile, but with .20 it was working great, even from with KDE/Xorg. That's no small milestone when I'm on dual CPU and multiple RAID and LVM, plus the usual video complications, among other things.
As a result, I stayed on .20 for rather longer than normal, only switching
(FWIW, I've had no problems with 2.6.21-rc3 so far, either, but I didn't
Duncan
Stable kernel 2.6.20.2 Posted Mar 13, 2007 8:46 UTC (Tue) by malor (subscriber, #2973) [Link] You know, I remember when stable Linux kernels were actually stable.
Stable kernel 2.6.20.2 Posted Mar 13, 2007 15:20 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] They still are. Serious regression fixes or trivially obvious fixes only, is the rule.
The churn is many orders of magnitude less than on the trunk.
Stable kernel 2.6.20.2 Posted Mar 10, 2007 5:42 UTC (Sat) by mbottrell (guest, #43008) [Link] I'm running 2.6.20.1 mainly due to the huge range of updated hardware (like my PATA device (Intel Core Duo 2 Mobo).
I'll switch over to 2.6.20.2.
I suspect in several months that 2.6.20.x series will be like that of the 2.6.9 was for the enterprise.
A lot of work has gone into the kernel with loads of hardware updates and bugfixes, but there will be a few wrinkles to iron out.
All in all, I haven't found it too bad. :)
Then you're lucky... Posted Mar 10, 2007 12:18 UTC (Sat) by rankincj (subscriber, #4865) [Link] On my machine, 2.6.20.1 often used to BUG when udev parsed the /sys directory structure. It looked like something was accessing freed memory.
And 2.6.20.2 is no better... Posted Mar 11, 2007 12:38 UTC (Sun) by rankincj (subscriber, #4865) [Link] So it's back to 2.6.19.7 for me.
And 2.6.20.2 is no better... Posted Mar 13, 2007 15:21 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Raise a bug / report it?
(FWIW it may be a driver problem: I just iterated over everything in /sys and read everything readable. No BUGs.)
And 2.6.20.2 is no better... Posted Mar 13, 2007 20:53 UTC (Tue) by chrisw (guest, #27074) [Link] Can you please make sure you've filed a bug reportso we can track this issue?
And 2.6.20.2 is no better... Posted Mar 14, 2007 11:31 UTC (Wed) by penberg (subscriber, #30234) [Link] It's probably the same problem as this:
|
|
||||||||||||