From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262005AbTHYQmv (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Aug 2003 12:42:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262008AbTHYQmv (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Aug 2003 12:42:51 -0400 Received: from [62.241.33.80] ([62.241.33.80]:27397 "EHLO mx00.linux-systeme.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262005AbTHYQml (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Aug 2003 12:42:41 -0400 From: Marc-Christian Petersen Organization: Working Overloaded Linux Kernel To: adefacc@tin.it, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: linux-2.2 future? Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 18:42:15 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 References: <3F468ABD.1EBAD831@tin.it> In-Reply-To: <3F468ABD.1EBAD831@tin.it> Cc: Ruben =?iso-8859-1?q?P=FCttmann?= , Alan Cox , Ville Herva MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200308251815.20131.m.c.p@wolk-project.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday 22 August 2003 23:27, A.D.F. wrote: Hi A. De Faccio > > I think 2.2 is not dead. I often see 2.2 kernels running on systems like > > wlan access points or dsl routers from different vendors. 2.2 is often > > used where stability is a must-have. At least security fixes have to go > > in. > I agree. > > What do you think? > Well, I think that 2.2.24 and 2.2.25 kernels are really stable (at least on > UP), but that the most weak side is on IDE disk drivers. My -secure tree is also rock solid on SMP :p > They seem to have DMA problems when using recent hard disks (i.e. Maxtor, > etc.) that lead to serious file system corruption problems. > Maybe there are also geometry problems because all troubles have been > observed on disks with more than 32 GB of capacity (i.e. 40 GB). > This is a pity because, up to now, 2.2.x kernels have been > a valid choice for small / semi-embedded systems 80x86 > (yes, I know that 2.4 should be better, but I'm still waiting for > a stable rock kernel). I agree on this. Therefore my 2.2-secure tree has a 2.4 IDE backport from the PLD Project by Krzysiek Taraszka & Krzysiek Oledzki. It's not that up2date like .21 and .22 IDE code is, but it works very very smooth and nice and rock solid. We use the 2.2-secure tree for almost all customers in my company. Biggest harddisk is a 160GB Maxtor IDE disk. > In conclusion, I hope that next maintainer will think about > these matters: > IDE drivers; ack! > security fixes; ack! Current 2.2 is missing, for example, hashing exploits in network stack, like 2.4 had some time ago. > micro-optimizations; also done in 2.2-secure > compatibility with newer compilers. This might be the hardest job. This is not done in 2.2-secure. I think the effort in doing this is not worth the time it takes. > After all if 2.0 seems to be still alive also 2.2 should be. I agree 100%. Anyway, no comment from Alan, so I think he don't want to give 2.2 away to me. P.S.: I've cc'ed Ruben, Alan and Ville. ciao, Marc