Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change

Grant Coady
2008-10-22T04:15:44Z

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:41:24 -0400, you wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:52:02 BST, Alex Howells said:
>> Requirements for me to put a kernel on a given server would be:
>
>> * supports the hardware
>The problem is that "supports" is often a fuzzy jello-like substance you
>try to nail to a tree. You mention the R8169 and e1000 drivers - if they
>bring the device up, but have issues under corner cases, is that "supports"
>or not?
>
>> * no security holes [in options I enable]
>Similarly for "no security holes". At *BEST*, you'll get "no *known* *major*
>security holes", unless you feel like auditing the entire source tree. There's
>a whole slew of bugs that we can't even agree if they *are* security bugs or
>just plain bugs - see Linus's rant on the subject a few months back.
>
>> * works reliably, under load/stress.
>And you win the trifecta - I don't think we've *ever* shipped a Linux kernel
>that worked reliably under the proper "beat on the scheduler/VM corner case"
>load/stress testing. Again, the best you can hope for is "doesn't fall over
>under non-pathological non-corner-case loads when sufficient resources are
>available so the kernel has a fighting chance".

>... Doing 'make -j100' on a
>single Core2 Duo is gonna be painful, no matter what.

Not painful at all, make -j100 is four seconds faster than a make -j5 on
a Core2Duo here with slamd64-12.1 (real: 3m21 vs 3m21).

Grant.
--