Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 23, 2013
An "enum" for Python 3
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
Also, what's wrong with letting tracepoints just disappear in new kernel releases? Userspace should expect this and it can deal with it gracefully.
Adding code to the kernel just to try to maintain tracepoint backward compatibility? Hah! That'll be the day.
On the value of static tracepoints
Posted Apr 28, 2009 20:23 UTC (Tue) by NAR (subscriber, #1313)
I guess they are not releasing a new kernel every 3 months... I think this "new release every 3 months" schedule with the "no stable ABI" policy just doesn't work well with "enterprise". I mean an application developer or system administrator might spend a considerable time to get to know these tracepoints, but if they change with every release, then the users won't be happy. And it's not just tracepoints, but tuning parameters under /proc or /sys, configuration parameters, etc. Even filesystems can start to work differently with each new kernel version (see the ext3 issues). I would hate to develop for such a moving target (it's quite enough to follow the customer's requests).
On the other hand people are forced to upgrade to get the security fixes, so they can't afford to stay with the stable well-known solution. I know that this is the market for the enterprise distributions, but it also means that the kernels of the (enterprise) distributions are diverging from the mainline kernel, even though the new kernel development methodology supposed to prevent this.
Mark Shuttleworth had this idea some time ago that the distributions (or applications) should sync their releases. It might be useful if let's say RHEL, SLE[SD], Ubuntu LTS (and maybe Debian stable) would be released around the same time, would get the same kernel and the same tracepoints, tuning parameters, etc. This could be labelled as a .0 release. This way the enterprise distrubitions could also backport the same security fixes from the later kernel versions.
Posted Apr 29, 2009 9:54 UTC (Wed) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047)
On the other hand people are forced to upgrade to get the security fixes, so they can't afford to stay with the stable well-known solution.
That's what the stable tree is for. The 2.6.x.y ones. You do know about those, yes?
Posted Apr 29, 2009 10:01 UTC (Wed) by NAR (subscriber, #1313)
Posted Apr 29, 2009 10:21 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (guest, #14462)
If it has, you are doing something wrong.
Posted Apr 29, 2009 10:22 UTC (Wed) by abacus (guest, #49001)
Posted Apr 29, 2009 16:12 UTC (Wed) by nye (guest, #51576)
Posted May 6, 2009 21:13 UTC (Wed) by roelofs (guest, #2599)
Not if you want a working ntpd.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds