[1/2] 2.6.22-rc5: known regressions with patches v2

[1/2] 2.6.22-rc5: known regressions with patches v2

[Michal Piotrowski]

Hi all,

Here is a list of some known regressions in 2.6.22-rc5
with patches available.

Feel free to add new regressions/remove fixed etc.
http://kernelnewbies.org/known_regressions

(BTW. There is a new category called "Will be fixed in 2.6.23")



Unclassified

Subject    : Device hang when offlining a CPU due to IRQ misrouting
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/31/419
Submitter  : Darrick J. Wong <djwong@us.ibm.com>
Handled-By : Siddha, Suresh B <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
Patch      : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/19/422
Status     : patch available

Subject    : long freezes on thinkpad t60
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/24/100
Submitter  : Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Handled-By : Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Patch      : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/16/81
Status     : patch was suggested



FBDEV

Subject    : mach64 breakage in 2.6.22
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/14/73
Submitter  : Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>
Handled-By : Ville Syrjälä <syrjala@sci.fi>
Patch      : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/14/273
Status     : patch was suggested



HWMON

Subject    : latest coretemp changes break s2ram
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/16/173
Submitter  : Soeren Sonnenburg <kernel@nn7.de>
Caused-By  : Rudolf Marek <r.marek@assembler.cz>
             commit 67f363b1f6a31cf5027a97372f64bcced4f05ba6
Handled-By : Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
Patch      : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/16/177
Status     : patch available



Regards,
Michal

--
LOG
http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/log/

Re: [1/2] 2.6.22-rc5: known regressions with patches v2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> 
> Subject    : long freezes on thinkpad t60
> References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/24/100
> Submitter  : Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
> Handled-By : Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> Patch      : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/16/81
> Status     : patch was suggested

This one is fixed, and tested by Miklos. It's commit fa490cfd15: "Fix 
possible runqueue lock starvation in wait_task_inactive()".

			Linus

Re: [1/2] 2.6.22-rc5: known regressions with patches v2

[Michal Piotrowski]

Linus Torvalds pisze:
> 
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
>> Subject    : long freezes on thinkpad t60
>> References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/24/100
>> Submitter  : Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
>> Handled-By : Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
>> Patch      : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/16/81
>> Status     : patch was suggested
> 
> This one is fixed, and tested by Miklos. It's commit fa490cfd15: "Fix 
> possible runqueue lock starvation in wait_task_inactive()".

Thanks for the information.

BTW. Björn noticed that I accidentally removed this regression.

Subject    : OProfile issues
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/12/207
Submitter  : Stephane Eranian <eranian@hpl.hp.com>
Handled-By : Björn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@gmx.de>
Patch      : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/12/392
Status     : patch was suggested


Regards,
Michal

-- 
LOG
http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/log/

[1/2] 2.6.22-rc5: known regressions with patches v2

[Ni@m]

Hello! I'm a newbuy in kernel development.
Now I'm just trying to find out what is going in it =).

I noticed this:
>>(BTW. There is a new category called "Will be fixed in 2.6.23")

Is it really important to release 2.6.22 as soon as possible? I think
kernel should be 99% stable. Why not to wait for patches on known
regressions and release more or less stable 2.6.22?

Thanks!

Best wishes, Niam.

Re: [1/2] 2.6.22-rc5: known regressions with patches v2

[Ni@m]

> We have patches for "very high non-preempt latency in
> context_struct_compute_av()" and "list_add corruption. prev->next
> should be next (f7d28794), but was f0df8ed4 (prev=f0df8ed4) Kernel Bug
> at lib/list_debug.c:33", but both are too intrusive.
>
> Anyway, those bugs are not regressions.
>

Are you going to release 2.6.22 with this bugs?? But question wasn't
on this subject ...
The question was "why linux kernel release should have some bugs that
would be fixed fixed in future?"
Let's wait and publish kernel w/o known bugs. Let's wait for some
time, let's publish 2.6.22-rc_last, test it for some time(2 weeks for
example), fix bugs if any and after _test_period_of_whole_kernel_ but
not _separate_patches/parts_ of kernel release stable one!

Re: [1/2] 2.6.22-rc5: known regressions with patches v2

[Alan Cox]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:39:50 +0300
"Ni@m" <niam.niam@gmail.com> wrote:

> > We have patches for "very high non-preempt latency in
> > context_struct_compute_av()" and "list_add corruption. prev->next
> > should be next (f7d28794), but was f0df8ed4 (prev=f0df8ed4) Kernel Bug
> > at lib/list_debug.c:33", but both are too intrusive.
> >
> > Anyway, those bugs are not regressions.
> The question was "why linux kernel release should have some bugs that
> would be fixed fixed in future?"

Because those bug fixes are intrusive so will potentially cause more
other bugs that will need fixing - so make the kernel a worse not a
better one in the short term.

> Let's wait and publish kernel w/o known bugs. 

That would be a bit like waiting for a Debian release and never happen.

Alan

Re: [1/2] 2.6.22-rc5: known regressions with patches v2

[Ni@m]

>>That would be a bit like waiting for a Debian release and never happen.
Ok, <offtop>but Debian seems to be stable and sometimes their teem
make releases =).</offtop>

Re: [1/2] 2.6.22-rc5: known regressions with patches v2

[Michal Piotrowski]

On 22/06/07, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:39:50 +0300
> "Ni@m" <niam.niam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > We have patches for "very high non-preempt latency in
> > > context_struct_compute_av()" and "list_add corruption. prev->next
> > > should be next (f7d28794), but was f0df8ed4 (prev=f0df8ed4) Kernel Bug
> > > at lib/list_debug.c:33", but both are too intrusive.
> > >
> > > Anyway, those bugs are not regressions.
> > The question was "why linux kernel release should have some bugs that
> > would be fixed fixed in future?"
>
> Because those bug fixes are intrusive so will potentially cause more
> other bugs that will need fixing - so make the kernel a worse not a
> better one in the short term.
>
> > Let's wait and publish kernel w/o known bugs.
>
> That would be a bit like waiting for a Debian release and never happen.

I'm trying to imagine this - Linux 2.6 "Debian style" roadmap:
15-VII-2007 - release of Linux 2.6.22
1-VIII-2007 - freeze
15-II-2009 - release of Linux 2.6.23
1-III-2009 - freeze
1-IX-2010 - release of Linux 2.6.24

:)

>
> Alan
>

Regards,
Michal

-- 
LOG
http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/log/