Re: stable? quality assurance?

[William Pitcock <nenolod@dereferenced.org>]

----- "Eric Dumazet" <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:

> Le dimanche 11 juillet 2010 à 09:18 +0200, Martin Steigerwald a écrit
> :
> > Hi!
> > 
> > 2.6.34 was a desaster for me: bug #15969 - patch was availble before
> 
> > 2.6.34 already, bug #15788, also reported with 2.6.34-rc2 already,
> as well 
> > as most important two complete lockups - well maybe just X.org and
> radeon 
> > KMS, I didn't start my second laptop to SSH into the locked up one -
> on my 
> > ThinkPad T42. I fixed the first one with the patch, but after the
> lockups I 
> > just downgraded to 2.6.33 again.
> > 
> > I still actually *use* my machines for something else than hunting
> patches 
> > for kernel bugs and on kernel.org it is written "Latest *Stable*
> Kernel" 
> > (accentuation from me). I know of the argument that one should use a
> 
> > distro kernel for machines that are for production use. But frankly,
> does 
> > that justify to deliver in advance known crap to the distributors?
> What 
> > impact do partly grave bugs reported on bugzilla have on the release
> 
> > decision?
> > 
> > And how about people who have their reasons - mine is TuxOnIce - to
> 
> > compile their own kernels?
> > 
> > Well 2.6.34.1 fixed the two reported bugs and it seemed to have
> fixed the 
> > freezes as well. So far so good.
> > 
> > Maybe it should read "prerelease of stable" for at least 2.6.34.0 on
> the 
> > website. And I just again always wait for .2 or .3, as with 2.6.34.1
> I 
> > still have some problems like the hang on hibernation reported in
> > 
> > hang on hibernation with kernel 2.6.34.1 and TuxOnIce 3.1.1.1
> > 
> > on this mailing list just a moment ago. But then 2.6.33 did hang
> with 
> > TuxOnIce which apparently (!) wasn't a TuxOnIce problem either,
> since 
> > 2.6.34 did not hang with it anymore which was a reason for me to try
> 
> > 2.6.34 earlier.
> > 
> > I am quite a bit worried about the quality of the recent kernels.
> Some 
> > iterations earlier I just compiled them, partly even rc-ones which I
> do 
> > not expact to be table, and they just worked. But in the recent
> times .0, 
> > partly even .1 or .2 versions haven't been stable for me quite some
> times 
> > already and thus they better not be advertised as such on kernel.org
> I 
> > think. I am willing to risk some testing and do bug reports, but
> these are 
> > still production machines, I do not have any spare test machines,
> and 
> > there needs to be some balance, i.e. the kernels should basically
> work. 
> > Thus I for sure will be more reluctant to upgrade in the future.
> > 
> > Ciao,
> 
> Anybody running latest kernel on a production machine is living
> dangerously. Dont you already know that ?
> 
> When 2.6.X is released, everybody knows it contains at least 100
> bugs.
> 
> It was true for all previous values of X, it will be true for all
> futures values.
> 
> If you want to be safer, use a one year old kernel, with all stable
> patches in.
> 
> Something like 2.6.32.16 : Its probably more stable than all 2.6.X
> kernels.

2.6.32.16 (possibly 2.6.32.15) has a regression where it is unusable
as a Xen domU.  I would say 2.6.32.12 is the best choice since who knows
what other regressions there are in .16.

William