Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753234AbbBXRGA (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2015 12:06:00 -0500 Received: from mail-wg0-f54.google.com ([74.125.82.54]:35215 "EHLO mail-wg0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752239AbbBXRF7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2015 12:05:59 -0500 Message-ID: <54ECAF73.8000406@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 18:05:55 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?RnJhbsOnb2lzIFZhbGVuZHVj?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> Linux Kernel Mailing List" Subject: Re: Linux 4.0-rc1 out.. References: <54EB4A98.6020300@de.ibm.com> <1424745296.10678.12.camel@gmail.com> <54EC2B04.9070406@de.ibm.com> <54EC5736.3070506@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <54EC5736.3070506@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2999 Lines: 72 Le 24/02/15 11:49, François Valenduc a écrit : > Le 24/02/15 08:40, Christian Borntraeger a écrit : >> Am 24.02.2015 um 03:34 schrieb Mike Galbraith: >>> On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 16:43 +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >>>> Am 23.02.2015 um 04:06 schrieb Linus Torvalds: >>>>> .. let's see how much, if anything, breaks due to the version number. >>>>> Probably less than during the 3.0 timeframe, but I can just imagine >>>>> somebody checking for meaningful versions. >>>>> >>>>> Because the people have spoken, and while most of it was complete >>>>> gibberish, numbers don't lie. People preferred 4.0, and 4.0 it shall >>>>> be. Unless somebody can come up with a good argument against it. >>>> >>>> The only argument that I can come up with is "we do not break userspace". >>>> For example there is this "gem" in configure.ac of valgrind: >>>> >>>> >>>> case "${kernel}" in >>>> 2.6.*|3.*) >>>> AC_MSG_RESULT([2.6.x/3.x family (${kernel})]) >>>> AC_DEFINE([KERNEL_2_6], 1, [Define to 1 if you're using Linux 2.6.x or Linux 3.x]) >>>> ;; >>>> >>>> 2.4.*) >>>> AC_MSG_RESULT([2.4 family (${kernel})]) >>>> AC_DEFINE([KERNEL_2_4], 1, [Define to 1 if you're using Linux 2.4.x]) >>>> ;; >>>> >>>> *) >>>> AC_MSG_RESULT([unsupported (${kernel})]) >>>> AC_MSG_ERROR([Valgrind works on kernels 2.4, 2.6]) >>>> ;; >>> >>> >>> Heh, if this is an argument, we have one hell of a lot of reverting to >>> do :) Crash for example breaks at much higher resolution, and indeed >>> just broke yet again. Tough titty for userspace methinks. >> >> Well crash is not a good example as it by design goes beyond the user ABI >> and directly touches the kernel data structures ;-) >> >> I am not requesting to go back to 3.*, I was just pointing out that if we apply >> strict rules on "we dont break userspace", the move to 3.* and 4.* was a mistake. >> We do provide uname26 as a workaround, so this is ok and the switch to 4 should >> be a lot smoother. >> >> But better end the discussion here :-) >> >> Christian >> >> FWIW, valgrind svn is fixed as of yesterday (for good, so Linux 5.* 6.*.. should >> also work) >> > Changing to v4.0 also seems to be a problem either for genkernel, lvm or > cryptsetup. I use LVM on an encrypted root on gentoo and it doesn't work > anymore. However it works if I rename the kernel to 3.20-rc1. > > Does anybody has an idea about that ? > > Thanks in advance, > > François Valenduc > Sorry for the noise, I must have done something wrong. I just tried again and it worked. François Valenduc -- 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/