Linux 2.6.27.28

Linux 2.6.27.28

[Greg KH]

I'm announcing the release of the 2.6.27.28 kernel.  It fixes a
boot-time error with the 2.6.27.27 release.  If you don't have this
problem, no need to upgrade.

I'll also be replying to this message with a copy of the patch between
2.6.27.27 and 2.6.27.28

The updated 2.6.27.y git tree can be found at:
        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-2.6.27.y.git
and can be browsed at the normal kernel.org git web browser:
        http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-2.6.27.y.git;a=summary

thanks,

greg k-h

------------

 Makefile              |    2 +-
 drivers/video/fbmon.c |    4 ++--
 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Greg Kroah-Hartman (1):
      Linux 2.6.27.28

Linus Torvalds (1):
      fbmon: work around compiler bug in gcc-4.2.4

Re: Linux 2.6.27.28

[Greg KH]

diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 387a5fd..7598325 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 VERSION = 2
 PATCHLEVEL = 6
 SUBLEVEL = 27
-EXTRAVERSION = .27
+EXTRAVERSION = .28
 NAME = Trembling Tortoise
 
 # *DOCUMENTATION*
diff --git a/drivers/video/fbmon.c b/drivers/video/fbmon.c
index 6a0aa18..839b0bf 100644
--- a/drivers/video/fbmon.c
+++ b/drivers/video/fbmon.c
@@ -256,8 +256,8 @@ static void fix_edid(unsigned char *edid, int fix)
 
 static int edid_checksum(unsigned char *edid)
 {
-	unsigned char i, csum = 0, all_null = 0;
-	int err = 0, fix = check_edid(edid);
+	unsigned char csum = 0, all_null = 0;
+	int i, err = 0, fix = check_edid(edid);
 
 	if (fix)
 		fix_edid(edid, fix);

Re: Linux 2.6.27.28

[Éric Piel]

Op 25-07-09 00:27, Greg KH schreef:
> I'm announcing the release of the 2.6.27.28 kernel.  It fixes a
> boot-time error with the 2.6.27.27 release.  If you don't have this
> problem, no need to upgrade.
> 
> I'll also be replying to this message with a copy of the patch between
> 2.6.27.27 and 2.6.27.28
> 
> The updated 2.6.27.y git tree can be found at:
>         git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-2.6.27.y.git
> and can be browsed at the normal kernel.org git web browser:
>         http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-2.6.27.y.git;a=summary
> 
Hello,
Currently, there is no clue on www.kernel.org that 2.6.27 is a "long
term stable" kernel tree. Would it be possible to add a line to the page
pointing to the latest version of this type of tree? I'm sure some
people would love discovering that such thing exists :-)

Eric

Re: Linux 2.6.27.28

[J.H.]

Éric Piel wrote:
> Op 25-07-09 00:27, Greg KH schreef:
>> I'm announcing the release of the 2.6.27.28 kernel.  It fixes a
>> boot-time error with the 2.6.27.27 release.  If you don't have this
>> problem, no need to upgrade.
>>
>> I'll also be replying to this message with a copy of the patch between
>> 2.6.27.27 and 2.6.27.28
>>
>> The updated 2.6.27.y git tree can be found at:
>>         git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-2.6.27.y.git
>> and can be browsed at the normal kernel.org git web browser:
>>         http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-2.6.27.y.git;a=summary
>>
> Hello,
> Currently, there is no clue on www.kernel.org that 2.6.27 is a "long
> term stable" kernel tree. Would it be possible to add a line to the page
> pointing to the latest version of this type of tree? I'm sure some
> people would love discovering that such thing exists :-)

Eric, Everyone,

Yes we know about this problem, the code that generates the numbers on 
the front page is really quite ancient (and thus any assumption we had 
back when it was written is anything but the same now) and we have been 
working on getting it updated.  However there has been a lot going on, 
Fedora's recent excitement, Linux Symposium, OSCon, etc and work on this 
has been disrupted and scattered - I.E. I haven't gotten very far on it 
yet :-(

I'm hoping to get back onto it next week, but please bear with us while 
we try and get it all sorted out and try and get the code into such a 
shape that we can actually cope with the ever changing idea of what are 
'latest' kernels are now, and going forward.

- John 'Warthog9' Hawley

Re: Linux 2.6.27.28

[Greg KH]

On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 01:49:53AM +0200, Éric Piel wrote:
> Currently, there is no clue on www.kernel.org that 2.6.27 is a "long
> term stable" kernel tree. Would it be possible to add a line to the page
> pointing to the latest version of this type of tree? I'm sure some
> people would love discovering that such thing exists :-)

I'm curious as to why someone, if they were inclined to be using such a
thing, wouldn't already know about this?

How many people really are relying on this .27 branch, becides the
distros, these days?  And if you are, why?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: Linux 2.6.27.28

[Bron Gondwana]

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 08:30:30PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 01:49:53AM +0200, Éric Piel wrote:
> > Currently, there is no clue on www.kernel.org that 2.6.27 is a "long
> > term stable" kernel tree. Would it be possible to add a line to the page
> > pointing to the latest version of this type of tree? I'm sure some
> > people would love discovering that such thing exists :-)
> 
> I'm curious as to why someone, if they were inclined to be using such a
> thing, wouldn't already know about this?
> 
> How many people really are relying on this .27 branch, becides the
> distros, these days?  And if you are, why?

We had some instability with .29, and it was annoying enough that I've
"standardised" on 2.6.27.25 across all the new installs of our servers
(largely because that was current back when I build those packages a
couple of weeks ago) - and since I'm reinstalling everything with the
shiny new Debian Lenny personality, we're running .27 on most of our
servers now.

I'm a little cautious about .30 because of the reiserfs changes that went
in.  All our customer data is on reiserfs partitions, and I want to take
it nice and slow testing it...

Er, that about covers it I think.  We'll probably jump to .30 or .31 at
some point.

Oh, yeah.  Bloody ipssend.  If anyone from IBM is reading this, can you
please hit your software distribution people over the head with a big
fat cluebat and provide your raid management tools as a single download
somewhere that's not a self extracting windows executable floppy image or
a .iso containing a self extracting windows executable floppy image, or...
you get the picture.  It's a disgrace.  And while you're at it, build an
ipssend that works with kernels 2.6.28+.  Thanks.

Bron.

Re: Linux 2.6.27.28

[Greg KH]

On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 03:06:37PM +1000, Grant Coady wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:30:30 -0700, you wrote:
> 
> >How many people really are relying on this .27 branch, becides the
> >distros, these days?  And if you are, why?
> 
> I'm using it on the firewall box because iptables is broken in later 
> kernels :(

Is this something that you have reported to the proper people to get
fixed?  Or is a known issue?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: Linux 2.6.27.28

[Thomas Voegtle]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1341 bytes --]


Hi,

first of all: thank you for the stable kernels...


On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 01:49:53AM +0200, Éric Piel wrote:
>> Currently, there is no clue on www.kernel.org that 2.6.27 is a "long
>> term stable" kernel tree. Would it be possible to add a line to the page
>> pointing to the latest version of this type of tree? I'm sure some
>> people would love discovering that such thing exists :-)
>
> I'm curious as to why someone, if they were inclined to be using such a
> thing, wouldn't already know about this?

It even isn't called at linux-kernel-announce, except the latest stable 
kernel.
So you have to read LKML, or follow the lwn.net news to track the 
older stable kernel. Or always guessing: when there is a release of the 
newer stable kernel (this is announced in linux-kernel-announce) then 
there might be a release of the older one aswell...


> How many people really are relying on this .27 branch, becides the
> distros, these days?  And if you are, why?

I'm one of that guys, having a server and one firewall and feeling 
much better with a small optimized own-built kernel for that machines.
And both just work with this .27 branch, why should I change it to 
2.6.30.y?
I don't need any of the new features and it won't be faster with 2.6.30 or 
something else...


       Thomas

Re: Linux 2.6.27.28

[Thomas Meyer]

Am Samstag, den 25.07.2009, 09:25 +0200 schrieb Thomas Voegtle:
> It even isn't called at linux-kernel-announce, except the latest stable 
> kernel.
> So you have to read LKML, or follow the lwn.net news to track the 
> older stable kernel. Or always guessing: when there is a release of the 
> newer stable kernel (this is announced in linux-kernel-announce) then 
> there might be a release of the older one aswell...

A feed reader is handy for this. Just add this feed:

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-2.6.27.y.git;a=rss

>        Thomas

Re: Linux 2.6.27.28

[Grant Coady]

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 22:26:16 -0700, you wrote:

>On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 03:06:37PM +1000, Grant Coady wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:30:30 -0700, you wrote:
>> 
>> >How many people really are relying on this .27 branch, becides the
>> >distros, these days?  And if you are, why?
>> 
>> I'm using it on the firewall box because iptables is broken in later 
>> kernels :(
>
>Is this something that you have reported to the proper people to get
>fixed?  Or is a known issue?

Been reported -- no fix, and now there's a new userspace (yet again) to 
confuse issues.  At least 2.6.27.x works.

Grant.
-- 
http://bugsplatter.id.au