Re: Hi! I've noticed that kernel.org advertises 2.6.28 as "The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is".

[Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>]

On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:39:55PM +0700, Igor Podlesny wrote:
> Actually that's either a mistake or I don't know what you guys call "a
> stable version".
> 
> Since 2.6.24 there're serious regressions in all the following
> "stable" releases. Both my own experience + http://www.kerneloops.org/
> proves that.
> 
> Just to bring in some examples:
> 
> -- using 2.6.25.x I started to notice "oops"es in dmesg (what hadn't
> been happening for a long time).
> 
> -- since 2.6.26 mine desktop system can't go suspend or hibernate. It
> tries, but immediately returns from that trying.
> 
> -- Copying several rather big files (~ 25--45 GiB) from XFS on LVM-2
> on MDraid partition to another one, I had the system rebooted both
> with 2.6.28 and 2.6.27.10 (accomplished using 2.6.24.7-rt(sic!)25). As
> you probably understand, that's the case you even can't trace where's
> the problem, at least on a desktop with GUI, not on server with plain
> text display. Although, I'm afraid even text display wouldn't had a
> chance to show anything, tracing that problem.
> 
> So, I don't feel Linux is stable since 2.6.24. Do you?

Well, I won't say that I find them 100% rock solid, but you seem to be
able to reproduce a lot of serious issues. Have you filed bug reports
to get them fixed ? You cannot expect people to fix bugs they're not
aware of !

Also it would be a good idea to get all those issues fixed soon, because
2.6.27-stable will be maintained for a long time.

Willy