From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751431AbWBVUtD (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:49:03 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751433AbWBVUtB (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:49:01 -0500 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:7481 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751431AbWBVUtA (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:49:00 -0500 Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 21:45:08 +0100 From: Jens Axboe To: Greg KH Cc: Arjan van de Ven , Gabor Gombas , "Theodore Ts'o" , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Kay Sievers , penberg@cs.helsinki.fi, bunk@stusta.de, rml@novell.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, johnstul@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: 2.6.16-rc4: known regressions Message-ID: <20060222204508.GO8852@suse.de> References: <20060222112158.GB26268@thunk.org> <20060222154820.GJ16648@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> <20060222162533.GA30316@thunk.org> <20060222173354.GJ14447@boogie.lpds.sztaki.hu> <20060222185923.GL16648@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> <20060222191832.GA14638@suse.de> <1140636588.2979.66.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20060222194024.GA15703@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060222194024.GA15703@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 22 2006, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 08:29:48PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 11:18 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > What about trying a stock 2.6.6 or so kernel? Does that work > > > differently from 2.6.15? > > > > ... however it's very much designed only for the kernel that comes with > > it (with "it's" I mean all the userspace infrastructure); all the > > changes and additions since 2.6.9 aren't incorporated so you probably > > really want new alsa, new initscripts, new mkinitrd, new > > module-init-tools. some because of abi changes since 2.6.9, others > > because the kernel grew capabilities that are really needed for "nice" > > behavior. > > I totally agree. Distros are changing into two different groups these > days: > - everything tied together and intregrated nicely for a specific > kernel version, userspace tool versions, etc. > - flexible and works with multiple kernel versions, different > userspace tools, etc. > > Distros in the first category are the "enterprise" releases (RHEL, SLES, > etc.), as well as some consumer oriented distros (SuSE, Ubuntu, Fedora > possibly.) > > More flexible distros that handle different kernel versions are Gentoo, > Debian, and probably Fedora. > > And this is a natural progression as people try to provide a more > complete "solution" for users. > > When people to complain that they can't run a "kernel-of-the-day" on > their "enterprise" distro, they are not realizing that that distro was > just not developed to support that kind of thing at all. I have to disagree somewhat violently to that statement, I'm afraid :-) At least for me, it's pretty much a requirement that I can put eg 2.6.18-rc2 on an enterprise install. It's a must to debug problems - both ways, actually, testing both a new rc kernel on that enterprise distro but also putting a vanilla kernel on the enterprise distro to test something that fails with the distro kernel. I'd absolutely hate if we got into a situation where you couldn't just put a new vanilla kernel on SLESx. Calling it a complete solution to just sounds like an excuse for breaking things that we don't have to. Please lets not make things so fragile! > So, in short, if you are going to do kernel development, pick a distro > that handles different kernel versions. Likewise, if you are doing > userspace development (X.org, HAL, KDE, Gnome, etc.) you pick a distro > that allows you to change that level of the stack. Everything doesn't fit into those two boxes. -- Jens Axboe