From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262917AbVAFRSR (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:18:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262919AbVAFRSR (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:18:17 -0500 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:47019 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262917AbVAFRSI (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:18:08 -0500 Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:38:00 -0200 From: Marcelo Tosatti To: William Lee Irwin III Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" , Adrian Bunk , Diego Calleja , Willy Tarreau , davidsen@tmr.com, aebr@win.tue.nl, solt2@dns.toxicfilms.tv, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: starting with 2.7 Message-ID: <20050106143800.GL20203@logos.cnet> References: <20050103053304.GA7048@alpha.home.local> <20050103142412.490239b8.diegocg@teleline.es> <20050103134727.GA2980@stusta.de> <20050104125738.GC2708@holomorphy.com> <20050104150810.GD3097@stusta.de> <20050104153445.GH2708@holomorphy.com> <20050104165301.GF3097@stusta.de> <20050104210117.GA7280@thunk.org> <20050106094519.GD20203@logos.cnet> <20050106165908.GA9636@holomorphy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050106165908.GA9636@holomorphy.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 08:59:08AM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 07:45:19AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > You got to be kidding now? > > 99% of the features distributions have applied to their 2.4 based kernels > > are "enterprise" features such as direct IO, AIO, etc. > > Really I can't recall any "attempt to make 2.4 stable" from the distros, > > its mostly "attempt to backport nice v2.6 feature". > > Do you have any example? > [tytso's comments elided] > > It took sometime to happen, but instability related to "high memory > > pressure" has been fixed in almost all cases long ago (the only > > remaining issue to my knowledged is loopback device with highmemory). > > I hardly see complaints of "crashes under load" problems since > > v2.4.19/20 or so. > > I am unfortunately holding 2.4.x' earlier history against it. While you > were maintaining it, much of what we're discussing was resolved. > Unfortunately, the stabilization you're talking about was essentially > too late; distros had long-since wildly diverged, they had frozen on > older releases, and the damage to Linux' reputation was already done. > I'm also unaware of major commercial distros (e.g. Red Hat, SuSE) using > 2.4.x more recent than 2.4.21 as a baseline, and it's also notable that > one of the largest segments of the commercial userbase I see is using a > distro kernel based on 2.4.9. I agree.