User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Comment filtering

Comment filtering

Posted Feb 23, 2010 4:23 UTC (Tue) by corbet (editor, #1)
In reply to: 2.6.32.9 Release notes by chad.netzer
Parent article: 2.6.32.9 Release notes

A comment filtering mechanism is in the works, has been for a little while. I hope that people won't use it much, though; it would be better if we could express our disagreements in a more respectful manner...


(Log in to post comments)

Comment filtering

Posted Feb 23, 2010 6:44 UTC (Tue) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

> it would be better if we could express our disagreements in a more respectful manner...

Is this directed to the above mentioned "pretentious" people? If yes, could you please point out which of my comments was disrespectful here?

Comment filtering

Posted Feb 23, 2010 13:56 UTC (Tue) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

It was not directed at anybody in particular, believe it or not. I just wish, in general, that the tone of the conversation would be a bit more respectful and that people would focus more on the issues and not other people...

Comment filtering

Posted Feb 23, 2010 19:09 UTC (Tue) by chad.netzer (subscriber, #4257) [Link]

And though I listed you as "pretentious", I would not put you in the same
class as PaxTroll or spender, who go out of their way to be condescending
primadonnas. And corbet would likely label me as disrespectful in these
comments (it's true; I do *not* respect the above two I mentioned).

The LWN comment section is not well suited to these kinds of opinionated
"discussions", since there are no tools to control the threading, collapsing
and rating of comments, etc. Hence, the same points keep getting
fruitlessly reargued. Not sure its fixable, but a simple filter *might* help
with signal to noise for those that want to have a novel discussion.

Meanwhile, I'd rather talk about things like which of these fixes actually
solve an issue for people. We have been testing #36 for a short while,
since the umount bug it fixes was actually hitting us in practice. It'd be
nice to talk about something like who here is actually using and testing the
2.6.32.y series, and what issues have they had?

Comment filtering

Posted Feb 23, 2010 23:50 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

2.6.32.x has actually been by far my least problematic kernel series in
ages. 2.6.31 had e1000e flow control lossage for me, and a couple of
oopses, rapidly fixed; 2.6.30 had e1000e 82574L jumbo frame lossage and a
single unreproducible incident of massive ext4 filesystem corruption (well
I say 'massive' but fsck fixed it completely: it just took it half an hour
of flooding messages across the screen). 2.6.32 has had nothing wrong at
all, other than an obscure and hard-to-track-down intel-hda ALSA bug,
exhibited only by PulseAudio complaints.

... or, rather, the only wrong thing is an explosion of almost totally
idle ext4 direct I/O kernel threads: one per CPU per sb. That's 96 or
something on my machine. I only want direct I/O for *one filesystem*
dammit!


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds