Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:27:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:27:54 -0400 Received: from RAVEL.CODA.CS.CMU.EDU ([128.2.222.215]:44928 "EHLO ravel.coda.cs.cmu.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:27:53 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:33:19 -0400 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: v2.6 vs v3.0 Message-ID: <20020930153319.GA18695@ravel.coda.cs.cmu.edu> Mail-Followup-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200209290716.g8T7GNwf000562@darkstar.example.net> <20020929091229.GA1014@suse.de> <1033311400.13001.5.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> <20020929153817.GC1014@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020929153817.GC1014@suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i From: Jan Harkes Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2941 Lines: 60 On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 05:38:17PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Sun, Sep 29 2002, Alan Cox wrote: > > Most of my boxes won't even run a 2.5 tree yet. I'm sure its hardly > > unique. Middle of November we may begin to find out how solid the core > > code actually is, as drivers get fixed up and also in the other > > direction as we eliminate numerous crashes caused by "fixed in 2.4" bugs > > Well why don't they run with 2.5? > > Alan, I think you are a pessimist painting a much bleaker picture of 2.5 > than it deserves. Sure lots of drivers may be broken still, I would be > naive if I thought that this is all changed in time for oct 31. Most of > these will not be fixed until people actually _use_ 2.5 (or 3.0-pre, or > whatever it will be called), and that will not happen until Linus > actually releases a -rc or similar. And so the fsck what? Noone expects > 2.6-pre/3.0-pre to be perfect. Ok, after losing a disk in the early 2.5 series, and not being able to compile pretty much any kernel since 2.5.33, I decided to give 2.5.39 a try last weekend. Built kernel, rebooted, almost seems to get stuch during the ide-probing (10 seconds wait is a conservative estimate), but it came up in single user. Checking for errors in /proc/kmsg, nothing. Great reboot multiuser start X open a window lose all access to my keyboard. Completely log in remotely with ssh, hmm kernel errors about unknown scancodes. Reboot, just don't use X for the moment, maybe I can catch an oops, lockup during boot while loading the uhci usb driver. Alt-sysrq works, another fsck later (these seem to take a lot longer, but that could be subjective). Disable hotplug/usb during startup, reboot, within 2 minutes orinoco_cs driver locks up and starts throwing debugging goo about transmit timeouts and resetting card. Nice, except for the fact that interrupts seem to be disabled and this time magic-sysrq doesn't work. Pull the battery out to be able to reboot the laptop, and went back to 2.4.20-latest for now. 2.5.33 did work mostly (after fixing up a bunch of compile fixes and the oss cs4281 driver), but seems to last only about 1 hour on battery life vs. the solid 3 1/2 hours with a 2.4 kernel. All of this is on a Thinkpad X20, which doesn't have a serial console. Using APM, not ACPI. But this is not a bugreport, because I haven't even got a chance to isolate any single problem in a way that I can create a useful report. > I'm not worried. I am a bit worried, at least as far as Coda is concerned, there is a lot of unmerged stuff, and as long as I can't do any testing of the changes it is a bit useless to send them off to Linus. I hope things stabilize before the feature freeze. Jan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/