Re: 2.4 vs 2.6

Re: 2.4 vs 2.6

[Anssi Saari]

>   -- modules don't autoload for some reason (though I'm sure that could
>      be solved),

I've had this too, with autofs4 and 3c59x. After patching lirc into the
kernel, the only real issue is with the console. I found a patch for radeonfb,
but didn't get anywhere with it.

The rest of my problems is userland stuff:

- Murasaki (a hotplug agent) doesn't react when USB things are plugged in
- swapon -a takes two minutes to complete for some reason
- rpc.lockd doesn't start, it says lockdsvc: Function not implemented. I don't
  know if I really need this anyway, nfs seems to work fine
- zsh doesn't complete make targets like menuconfig
- I'd also like to point out that cdrecord isn't sufficient for my 
  CD writing needs, I need cdrdao too and it doesn't seem to support
  direct access to ATAPI drives. 

Re: 2.4 vs 2.6

[David Ford]

Partial comments below

Anssi Saari wrote:

>>  -- modules don't autoload for some reason (though I'm sure that could
>>     be solved),
>>    
>>
>
>I've had this too, with autofs4 and 3c59x. After patching lirc into the
>kernel, the only real issue is with the console. I found a patch for radeonfb,
>but didn't get anywhere with it.
>
>The rest of my problems is userland stuff:
>
>- Murasaki (a hotplug agent) doesn't react when USB things are plugged in
>  
>

You need to update your hotplug installation.  Turn on debugging in your 
hotplug scripts and copy the appropriate object ID numbers into the 
usb.usermap file.

>- swapon -a takes two minutes to complete for some reason
>  
>

Try recreating your swapon partition/file?  Turning on a gig of swap 
here happens pretty quick.

>- rpc.lockd doesn't start, it says lockdsvc: Function not implemented. I don't
>  
>

Update/rebuild your rpc/nfs tools.

>  know if I really need this anyway, nfs seems to work fine
>- zsh doesn't complete make targets like menuconfig
>- I'd also like to point out that cdrecord isn't sufficient for my 
>  CD writing needs, I need cdrdao too and it doesn't seem to support
>  direct access to ATAPI drives. 
>  
>

I haven't used zsh or cdrdao so I can't comment on them.   I don't use 
the above modules, but all the other modules on my system (numerous) do 
autoload just fine.  NFS is a big PITA for me for other reasons but the 
services do start.

My systems are of the Gentoo flavor.

David

XFS for 2.4

[Nathan Scott]

Hi Marcelo,

Please do a

	bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+coreXFS

This will merge the core 2.4 kernel changes required for supporting
the XFS filesystem, as listed below.  If this all looks acceptable,
then please also pull the filesystem-specific code (fs/xfs/*)

	bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+justXFS

cheers.

-- 
Nathan


linux-2.4+coreXFS updates the following files:

 Documentation/Changes              |   16 ++
 Documentation/Configure.help       |   84 +++++++++++++
 Documentation/filesystems/00-INDEX |    2 
 Documentation/filesystems/xfs.txt  |  226 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 MAINTAINERS                        |    8 +
 drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c          |    3 
 fs/Config.in                       |    7 +
 fs/Makefile                        |    4 
 fs/buffer.c                        |   59 ++++++++-
 fs/inode.c                         |   46 +++----
 fs/namei.c                         |   13 +-
 fs/open.c                          |   13 ++
 include/linux/dqblk_xfs.h          |    9 -
 include/linux/fs.h                 |   50 +++++++-
 include/linux/posix_acl_xattr.h    |   67 ++++++++++
 include/linux/sched.h              |    1 
 kernel/ksyms.c                     |   12 +
 mm/filemap.c                       |   63 +++++++++-
 18 files changed, 618 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-)

through these ChangeSets:

<nathans@bruce.melbourne.sgi.com> (03/11/24 1.1183.1.1)
   VFS support for filesystems which implement POSIX ACLs.
   
   This involves an inode flag which directs the VFS to skip application
   of the umask so that the filesystem ACL code can do this according to
   the POSIX rules, and a new header file defining the contents of the 2
   system ACL extended attributes.  This is a backport from 2.6.

<nathans@bruce.melbourne.sgi.com> (03/11/25 1.1194)
   Fix utimes(2) and immutable/append-only files.

<nathans@bruce.melbourne.sgi.com> (03/11/25 1.1195)
   Remove some unused macros and related comment from the XFS quota header.

<nathans@bruce.melbourne.sgi.com> (03/11/25 1.1196)
   Add a process flag to identify a process performing a transaction.
   Used by XFS and backported from 2.6.

<nathans@bruce.melbourne.sgi.com> (03/11/25 1.1197)
   Support for delayed allocation.  Used by XFS and backported from 2.6.

<nathans@bruce.melbourne.sgi.com> (03/11/25 1.1198)
   Provide a simple try-lock based dirty page flushing routine.

<nathans@bruce.melbourne.sgi.com> (03/11/25 1.1199)
   Provide an iget variant without unlocking the inode and without the
   read_inode call (iget_locked).  Used by XFS and backported from 2.6.

<nathans@bruce.melbourne.sgi.com> (03/11/26 1.1200)
   Export several kernel symbols used by the XFS filesystem.

<nathans@bruce.melbourne.sgi.com> (03/11/26 1.1201)
   Add XFS documentation and incorporate XFS into the kernel build.

<nathans@bruce.melbourne.sgi.com> (03/12/01 1.1202.1.1)
   [XFS] Document the XFS noikeep option, make ikeep the default.

Re: XFS for 2.4

[Marcelo Tosatti]

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Nathan Scott wrote:

> Hi Marcelo,
> 
> Please do a
> 
> 	bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+coreXFS
> 
> This will merge the core 2.4 kernel changes required for supporting
> the XFS filesystem, as listed below.  If this all looks acceptable,
> then please also pull the filesystem-specific code (fs/xfs/*)
> 
> 	bk pull http://xfs.org:8090/linux-2.4+justXFS

Nathan, 

I think XFS should be a 2.6 only feature.

2.6 is already stable enough for people to use it. 

Re: 2.4 vs 2.6

[Jan Rychter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1681 bytes --]

>>>>> "Marcelo" == Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com> writes:
[...]
 Marcelo> 2.6 is already stable enough for people to use it.

Yes, that's an old post I'm responding to, but I've just given 2.6 a try
on my desktop machine, and the above statement seems even more
annoying. I hit the following problems:

  -- I had to wrestle ATI drivers into compiling, they finally did, but
     the kernel prints scary-looking warnings with call stacks, about
     "sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/slab.c:1856,
  -- modules don't autoload for some reason (though I'm sure that could
     be solved),
  -- bttv does not compile, so no video input for me,
  -- drivers for my telephony card (from Digium) are not 2.6-ready, so
     no telephony support for me,
  -- I have just frozen the machine hard by copying files over NFS and
     doing a simulation write to an ATAPI CD-RW at the same time.

I haven't even gotten to VMware and user-mode Linux, which I also need,
and I'm not even dreaming about getting my scanner to work. Not to
mention that on my laptop there would be an entirely different set of
issues, and software suspend in 2.6 is, well, still lacking.

So, as for me, 2.6 is a definite no-no. I see no advantage whatsoever in
running it, it caused me nothing but pain, and there is no improvement
that I could see that would justify the upgrade.

So please be careful when making statements like that. 2.6 is *NOT*
stable enough nor ready enough for people to use it, unless those people
have a narrow range of hardware on which the 2.6 kernel has actually
been tested (translation: they have the same hardware as the main
developers do).

--J.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]

Re: 2.4 vs 2.6

[Roberto Sanchez]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2869 bytes --]

Jan Rychter wrote:
>>>>>>"Marcelo" == Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com> writes:
> 
> [...]
>  Marcelo> 2.6 is already stable enough for people to use it.
> 
> Yes, that's an old post I'm responding to, but I've just given 2.6 a try
> on my desktop machine, and the above statement seems even more
> annoying. I hit the following problems:
> 
>   -- I had to wrestle ATI drivers into compiling, they finally did, but
>      the kernel prints scary-looking warnings with call stacks, about
>      "sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/slab.c:1856,
I have an nForce2 w/ Radeon 9000.  No problems w/ DRI drivers (included
in kernel) or thi ATI supplied drivers, which ATI says successfully
compiled against 2.6.0-test6.

>   -- modules don't autoload for some reason (though I'm sure that could
>      be solved),
Make sure you have all the different module options turned on.  In 2.6
there are different options for loading, unloading and force unloading
modules.

>   -- bttv does not compile, so no video input for me,
I don't know anything about video input.  Did you try Google?

>   -- drivers for my telephony card (from Digium) are not 2.6-ready, so
>      no telephony support for me,
I don't know anything about telephony.  Did you try Google?

>   -- I have just frozen the machine hard by copying files over NFS and
>      doing a simulation write to an ATAPI CD-RW at the same time.
What CPU/chipset do you have?  There are timing issues with nForce2
and AMD CPUs.  A quick search of the LKML archives will yield lots
of discussion and patcheson this issue.

> 
> I haven't even gotten to VMware and user-mode Linux, which I also need,
> and I'm not even dreaming about getting my scanner to work. Not to
> mention that on my laptop there would be an entirely different set of
> issues, and software suspend in 2.6 is, well, still lacking.
VMWare won't work (according to the VMWare tech support people), but
they will (probably) support 2.6 kernels in their next point release.
I assume you are talking about their workstation product.  SWSusp
works fine on my laptop.

> 
> So, as for me, 2.6 is a definite no-no. I see no advantage whatsoever in
> running it, it caused me nothing but pain, and there is no improvement
> that I could see that would justify the upgrade.
But there is plenty of improvement for plenty of people.

> 
> So please be careful when making statements like that. 2.6 is *NOT*
> stable enough nor ready enough for people to use it, unless those people
> have a narrow range of hardware on which the 2.6 kernel has actually
> been tested (translation: they have the same hardware as the main
> developers do).
I doubt I have the same hardware as the main developers, but I did
read the documentation.  Did you?  Even if it is stable enough for
most people, it is still a beta kernel.

> 
> --J.

-Roberto.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: 2.4 vs 2.6

[Måns Rullgård]

Roberto Sanchez <rcsanchez97@yahoo.es> writes:

>> I haven't even gotten to VMware and user-mode Linux, which I also
>> need, and I'm not even dreaming about getting my scanner to
>> work. Not to mention that on my laptop there would be an entirely
>> different set of issues, and software suspend in 2.6 is, well,
>> still lacking.
> VMWare won't work

I've run vmware on a 2.6 kernel.  I found a little patch somewhere
that made it work.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mru@kth.se

Re: 2.4 vs 2.6

[Daniel Gryniewicz]

On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 06:23, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Roberto Sanchez <rcsanchez97@yahoo.es> writes:
> 
> >> I haven't even gotten to VMware and user-mode Linux, which I also
> >> need, and I'm not even dreaming about getting my scanner to
> >> work. Not to mention that on my laptop there would be an entirely
> >> different set of issues, and software suspend in 2.6 is, well,
> >> still lacking.
> > VMWare won't work
> 
> I've run vmware on a 2.6 kernel.  I found a little patch somewhere
> that made it work.

Gentoo automatically applies this patch. :)
-- 
Daniel Gryniewicz <dang@fprintf.net>

Re: 2.4 vs 2.6

[Daniel Gryniewicz]

On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 20:08, Jan Rychter wrote:
<snip>
> So please be careful when making statements like that. 2.6 is *NOT*
> stable enough nor ready enough for people to use it, unless those people
> have a narrow range of hardware on which the 2.6 kernel has actually
> been tested (translation: they have the same hardware as the main
> developers do).

I have a brand-spanken-new laptop (less than a month old), and all my
hardware works great.  In fact, ATI drivers (only in pre-release X) only
work on 2.6, and ACPI never worked on 2.4.  So, it works better for me
than on 2.4.  Please be careful when saying that 2.4 is better than 2.6,
it's only that way for a narrow set of hardware.
-- 
Daniel Gryniewicz <dang@fprintf.net>

Re: 2.4 vs 2.6

[coderman]

Jan Rychter wrote:

>So, as for me, 2.6 is a definite no-no. I see no advantage whatsoever in
>running it, it caused me nothing but pain, and there is no improvement
>that I could see that would justify the upgrade.
>
>So please be careful when making statements like that. 2.6 is *NOT*
>stable enough nor ready enough for people to use it, unless those people
>have a narrow range of hardware on which the 2.6 kernel has actually
>been tested (translation: they have the same hardware as the main
>developers do).
>  
>
For every person who has problems with 2.6, there are probably 2 others
who have none, and enjoy the benefits of the new features.  2.6 works
great for me, and one a number of hardware configurations including:

- PII-266
- SMP dual PIII-550
- M10000 mini-itx
- 1.1 Ghz Athlon

all with a variety of video chipsets, USB devices, IDE / ATAPI disks
and CD/DVD, sound cards, etc.

I doubt many of these are consistent with the main developers.

2.6 may not be usable for you, but this has no bearing on the utility
of the branch for others.  I have noticed benefits (mainly prempt,
IPSEC, and the IDE device handling) which make it very worthwhile.

Re: 2.4 vs 2.6

[tabris]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Saturday 13 December 2003 9:01 pm, coderman wrote:
> Jan Rychter wrote:
> >So, as for me, 2.6 is a definite no-no. I see no advantage whatsoever
> > in running it, it caused me nothing but pain, and there is no
> > improvement that I could see that would justify the upgrade.
> >
> >So please be careful when making statements like that. 2.6 is *NOT*
> >stable enough nor ready enough for people to use it, unless those
> > people have a narrow range of hardware on which the 2.6 kernel has
> > actually been tested (translation: they have the same hardware as the
> > main developers do).
>
> For every person who has problems with 2.6, there are probably 2 others
> who have none, and enjoy the benefits of the new features.  2.6 works
> great for me, and one a number of hardware configurations including:
	Somehow, working for 2/3, or even 75% of cases is less than encouraging 
to me.

	Especially if I must not only set up boxes that I may not touch 
physically for days, weeks, etc. Or I suggest which kernel for other 
people to use, due to security fixes (which, iirc, not all 2.4 fixes have 
been forward ported yet), features, etc.

	2.6 is... getting there. and I DO much appreciate the work of the 
developers. But with devfs deprecated, udev still coming into its own 
(Nice work GregKG btw); with the myriad of (user visible) input layer 
changes; the change in focus on initrds (it used to be a nice thing that 
only serious people use. Now, although still optional, it is now becoming 
much more important). Or mebbe consider that the last time I tried to 
install the new modutils (I'm blaming my distro vendor for this), it 
broke my 2.4 modutils, requiring me to boot with init=/bin/sh and fix it 
up.

Sure. little things, but altogether, they add up to a lot more work to 
learn.

<snip>
>
> 2.6 may not be usable for you, but this has no bearing on the utility
> of the branch for others.  I have noticed benefits (mainly prempt,
> IPSEC, and the IDE device handling) which make it very worthwhile.
>
- --
tabris
- -
When asked by an anthropologist what the Indians called America before
the white men came, an Indian said simply "Ours."
		-- Vine Deloria, Jr.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/3May1U5ZaPMbKQcRApmfAJ9IQexnFORYTaOEpTiyPQnHt3qCMgCeJimh
8hR+oaEqXhBXbVB9tRg9g5M=
=/Cnp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: 2.4 vs 2.6

[Voicu Liviu]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jan Rychter wrote:

|>>>>> "Marcelo" == Marcelo Tosatti
|>>>>> <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com> writes:
|
| [...] Marcelo> 2.6 is already stable enough for people to use it.
|
| Yes, that's an old post I'm responding to, but I've just given 2.6
| a try on my desktop machine, and the above statement seems even
| more annoying. I hit the following problems:
|
| -- I had to wrestle ATI drivers into compiling, they finally did,
| but the kernel prints scary-looking warnings with call stacks,
| about "sleeping function called from invalid context at
| mm/slab.c:1856, -- modules don't autoload for some reason (though
| I'm sure that could be solved), -- bttv does not compile, so no
| video input for me, -- drivers for my telephony card (from Digium)
| are not 2.6-ready, so no telephony support for me, -- I have just
| frozen the machine hard by copying files over NFS and doing a
| simulation write to an ATAPI CD-RW at the same time.
|
| I haven't even gotten to VMware and user-mode Linux, which I also
| need, and I'm not even dreaming about getting my scanner to work.
| Not to mention that on my laptop there would be an entirely
| different set of issues, and software suspend in 2.6 is, well,
| still lacking.
|
| So, as for me, 2.6 is a definite no-no. I see no advantage
| whatsoever in running it, it caused me nothing but pain, and there
| is no improvement that I could see that would justify the upgrade.
|
| So please be careful when making statements like that. 2.6 is *NOT*
|  stable enough nor ready enough for people to use it, unless those
| people have a narrow range of hardware on which the 2.6 kernel has
| actually been tested (translation: they have the same hardware as
| the main developers do).
|
| --J.


My specs:
Cpu:Athlon XP 2500+ BARTON {10x190}
Mobo:EPOX 8RDA3 + NFORCE 2
Ram:Corsair TWINX 512 3200LL{dual channel/11-3-2-2.0}
Fan:Cooler Master +7
Video:Hercules 3D Prophet 9600 PRO Radeon 128MB

My Hercules 3D Prophet 9600 PRO Radeon simply freezes my comp. with
ati-drivers from ati.com so I need to press reset!(so I only can run
console)
My sound (nvidia on board) works very shitty and I have no control on
it (level sound I mean).
I was running 2.4.23 vanilla + lvm1 so I moved to 2.6 vanilla+lvm2 and
now I can not move back

These are my biggest problems with 2.6.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/3Aurkj4I0Et8EMgRArxCAKDbp0uE5mIhA5/5C+v/71tscWneHQCg0h3R
RF2NIf4bbQ3XEMjV6eEePJI=
=7jBp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: 2.4 vs 2.6

[Roberto Sanchez]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 765 bytes --]

Voicu Liviu wrote:
> My specs:
> Cpu:Athlon XP 2500+ BARTON {10x190}
> Mobo:EPOX 8RDA3 + NFORCE 2
> Ram:Corsair TWINX 512 3200LL{dual channel/11-3-2-2.0}
> Fan:Cooler Master +7
> Video:Hercules 3D Prophet 9600 PRO Radeon 128MB
> 
> My Hercules 3D Prophet 9600 PRO Radeon simply freezes my comp. with
> ati-drivers from ati.com so I need to press reset!(so I only can run
> console)
> My sound (nvidia on board) works very shitty and I have no control on
> it (level sound I mean).
> I was running 2.4.23 vanilla + lvm1 so I moved to 2.6 vanilla+lvm2 and
> now I can not move back
> 
> These are my biggest problems with 2.6.


Have you treid the in kernel DRI drivers?  They work with my Radeon
9000 on an nForce2.

Also, why can't you go back to 2.4.23?

-Roberto

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: 2.4 vs 2.6

[Voicu Liviu]

Roberto Sanchez wrote:

> Voicu Liviu wrote:
>
>> My specs:
>> Cpu:Athlon XP 2500+ BARTON {10x190}
>> Mobo:EPOX 8RDA3 + NFORCE 2
>> Ram:Corsair TWINX 512 3200LL{dual channel/11-3-2-2.0}
>> Fan:Cooler Master +7
>> Video:Hercules 3D Prophet 9600 PRO Radeon 128MB
>>
>> My Hercules 3D Prophet 9600 PRO Radeon simply freezes my comp. with
>> ati-drivers from ati.com so I need to press reset!(so I only can run
>> console)
>> My sound (nvidia on board) works very shitty and I have no control on
>> it (level sound I mean).
>> I was running 2.4.23 vanilla + lvm1 so I moved to 2.6 vanilla+lvm2 and
>> now I can not move back
>>
>> These are my biggest problems with 2.6.
>
>
>
> Have you treid the in kernel DRI drivers?  They work with my Radeon
> 9000 on an nForce2.
>
> Also, why can't you go back to 2.4.23?

Because i use lvm2 and I could not find the way to get back to lvm1
Any clue?

>
> -Roberto

Liviu

Re: 2.4 vs 2.6

[Harry McGregor]

On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 10:32, Voicu Liviu wrote:

> Because i use lvm2 and I could not find the way to get back to lvm1
> Any clue?

How about using the patches for 2.4 to give you LVM2 support?

http://people.sistina.com/~thornber/

We have it running on one system right now, in fact it is part of the
reason that we manually patched our 2.4.21 to fix the local root exploit
that was fixed in 2.4.23, we just had too many external patches
(FreeSwan, DeviceMapper, XFS, etc) on that system, to do patch and
recompile in a reasonable amount of time.


			Harry

> Liviu

Re: 2.4 vs 2.6

[Voicu Liviu]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Harry McGregor wrote:

| On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 10:32, Voicu Liviu wrote:
|
|> Because i use lvm2 and I could not find the way to get back to
|> lvm1 Any clue?
|
|
| How about using the patches for 2.4 to give you LVM2 support?
|
| http://people.sistina.com/~thornber/

This url?
http://people.sistina.com/~thornber/patches/2.4-stable/2.4.22/2.4.22-dm-1/
I'll just get the 2.4.23 vanilla and patch it? I'll try
Thanks

|
| We have it running on one system right now, in fact it is part of
| the reason that we manually patched our 2.4.21 to fix the local
| root exploit that was fixed in 2.4.23, we just had too many
| external patches (FreeSwan, DeviceMapper, XFS, etc) on that system,
| to do patch and recompile in a reasonable amount of time.
|
|
| Harry
|
|> Liviu
|
|
|
| - 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/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/3WgCkj4I0Et8EMgRApIvAKDO8umYrrSqDodby3OWmxwY9x5ejgCg7wZ+
u5SiceDoteNq61XIVK7vD54=
=5qUw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: 2.4 vs 2.6

[Frederik Deweerdt]

>   -- bttv does not compile, so no video input for me,
I'm watching TV on 2.6.0-test11 with bttv properly loaded...

bttv: driver version 0.9.12 loaded

Fred