From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f47.google.com ([209.85.214.47]:36322 "EHLO mail-it0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751317AbcIML2n (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Sep 2016 07:28:43 -0400 Received: by mail-it0-f47.google.com with SMTP id o3so32535657ita.1 for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 04:28:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated) To: Chris Murphy , Martin Steigerwald References: <57D51BF9.2010907@online.no> <6762481.5JxuKd9axT@merkaba> <20160912202109.GL28465@reaktio.net> <2026673.ODgFlz56RI@merkaba> Cc: =?UTF-8?B?UGFzaSBLw6Rya2vDpGluZW4=?= , David Sterba , Waxhead , Btrfs BTRFS From: "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 07:28:38 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2016-09-12 16:44, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Martin Steigerwald wrote: >> Am Montag, 12. September 2016, 23:21:09 CEST schrieb Pasi Kärkkäinen: >>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:57:17PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: >>>> Am Montag, 12. September 2016, 18:27:47 CEST schrieb David Sterba: >>>>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 04:27:14PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: >>>>>>> I therefore would like to propose that some sort of feature / >>>>>>> stability >>>>>>> matrix for the latest kernel is added to the wiki preferably >>>>>>> somewhere >>>>>>> where it is easy to find. It would be nice to archive old matrix'es >>>>>>> as >>>>>>> well in case someone runs on a bit older kernel (we who use Debian >>>>>>> tend >>>>>>> to like older kernels). In my opinion it would make things bit >>>>>>> easier >>>>>>> and perhaps a bit less scary too. Remember if you get bitten badly >>>>>>> once >>>>>>> you tend to stay away from from it all just in case, if you on the >>>>>>> other >>>>>>> hand know what bites you can safely pet the fluffy end instead :) >>>>>> >>>>>> Somebody has put that table on the wiki, so it's a good starting >>>>>> point. >>>>>> I'm not sure we can fit everything into one table, some combinations >>>>>> do >>>>>> not bring new information and we'd need n-dimensional matrix to get >>>>>> the >>>>>> whole picture. >>>>> >>>>> https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status >>>> >>>> Great. >>>> >>>> I made to minor adaption. I added a link to the Status page to my warning >>>> in before the kernel log by feature page. And I also mentioned that at >>>> the time the page was last updated the latest kernel version was 4.7. >>>> Yes, thats some extra work to update the kernel version, but I think its >>>> beneficial to explicitely mention the kernel version the page talks >>>> about. Everyone who updates the page can update the version within a >>>> second. >>> >>> Hmm.. that will still leave people wondering "but I'm running Linux 4.4, not >>> 4.7, I wonder what the status of feature X is.." >>> >>> Should we also add a column for kernel version, so we can add "feature X is >>> known to be OK on Linux 3.18 and later".. ? Or add those to "notes" field, >>> where applicable? >> >> That was my initial idea, and it may be better than a generic kernel version >> for all features. Even if we fill in 4.7 for any of the features that are >> known to work okay for the table. >> >> For RAID 1 I am willing to say it works stable since kernel 3.14, as this was >> the kernel I used when I switched /home and / to Dual SSD RAID 1 on this >> ThinkPad T520. > > Just to cut yourself some slack, you could skip 3.14 because it's EOL > now, and just go from 4.4. That reminds me, we should probably make a point to make it clear that this is for the _upstream_ mainline kernel versions, not for versions from some arbitrary distro, and that people should check the distro's documentation for that info.