[OT] Unofficial but Supported Kernel Patches

[OT] Unofficial but Supported Kernel Patches

[John Weber]

I am trying to put a list together of all the unofficial kernel patches. 
  I am speaking of systems like Rik's RMAP VM, and others like it.

I want to put up a page on linuxhq.com with all of these patches.  If 
you would like to have your maintained patches (or trees) listed, please 
shoot me an email with a description of your tree (or patch) and what is 
so special about it :).  Also include URLs, emails, or anything else 
you'd like published.

I appreciate your help.

Re: [OT] Unofficial but Supported Kernel Patches

[Pawel Kot]

On Sun, 12 May 2002, John Weber wrote:

> I am trying to put a list together of all the unofficial kernel patches.
>   I am speaking of systems like Rik's RMAP VM, and others like it.
>
> I want to put up a page on linuxhq.com with all of these patches.  If
> you would like to have your maintained patches (or trees) listed, please
> shoot me an email with a description of your tree (or patch) and what is
> so special about it :).  Also include URLs, emails, or anything else
> you'd like published.

What about http://kernelnewbies.org/patches/ ?

pkot
-- 
mailto:pkot@linuxnews.pl :: mailto:pkot@slackware.pl
http://kt.linuxnews.pl/ :: Kernel Traffic po polsku

Re: [OT] Unofficial but Supported Kernel Patches

[John Weber]

Pawel Kot wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2002, John Weber wrote:
> 
> 
>>I am trying to put a list together of all the unofficial kernel patches.
>>  I am speaking of systems like Rik's RMAP VM, and others like it.
>>
>>I want to put up a page on linuxhq.com with all of these patches.  If
>>you would like to have your maintained patches (or trees) listed, please
>>shoot me an email with a description of your tree (or patch) and what is
>>so special about it :).  Also include URLs, emails, or anything else
>>you'd like published.
> 
> 
> What about http://kernelnewbies.org/patches/ ?
> 
> pkot

I was thinking more about patches that are not included in the kernel 
right now, and perhaps more research patches that may never be included 
in the kernel.

Re: [OT] Unofficial but Supported Kernel Patches

[Randy.Dunlap]

On Sun, 12 May 2002, Pawel Kot wrote:

| On Sun, 12 May 2002, John Weber wrote:
|
| > I am trying to put a list together of all the unofficial kernel patches.
| >   I am speaking of systems like Rik's RMAP VM, and others like it.
| >
| > I want to put up a page on linuxhq.com with all of these patches.  If
| > you would like to have your maintained patches (or trees) listed, please
| > shoot me an email with a description of your tree (or patch) and what is
| > so special about it :).  Also include URLs, emails, or anything else
| > you'd like published.
|
| What about http://kernelnewbies.org/patches/ ?

That's nice.

What I would like is for someone to maintain a set of
"required" patches to each new kernel --
"required" here meaning "these patches are needed for kernel
x.y.z to build or boot cleanly."

The patchsets would contain only compile/link fixes and
critical logic fixes to release and pre-release kernels.

This wouldn't be for me necessarily, as I already keep a
"fixes" email file, but I think that this could help
cut down on repeated emails on lkml about <2.5.19 has errors>
or "mounting a CD with ide-scsi crashes 2.5.11."

It could help developers, users, and testers get going
quickly.

-- 
~Randy

Re: [OT] Unofficial but Supported Kernel Patches

[Tomas Szepe]

> [Randy.Dunlap <rddunlap@osdl.org>, May-12 2002, Sun, 16:32 -0700]
> On Sun, 12 May 2002, Pawel Kot wrote:
> 
> | On Sun, 12 May 2002, John Weber wrote:
> |
> | > I am trying to put a list together of all the unofficial kernel patches.
> | >   I am speaking of systems like Rik's RMAP VM, and others like it.
> | >
> | > I want to put up a page on linuxhq.com with all of these patches.  If
> | > you would like to have your maintained patches (or trees) listed, please
> | > shoot me an email with a description of your tree (or patch) and what is
> | > so special about it :).  Also include URLs, emails, or anything else
> | > you'd like published.
> |
> | What about http://kernelnewbies.org/patches/ ?
> 
> That's nice.
> 
> What I would like is for someone to maintain a set of
> "required" patches to each new kernel --
> "required" here meaning "these patches are needed for kernel
> x.y.z to build or boot cleanly."
> 
> The patchsets would contain only compile/link fixes and
> critical logic fixes to release and pre-release kernels.

Do you mean something even more
"select fault_and_patch from kernel group by release;" than
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk/Linux-2.5.html
?

T.

Re: [OT] Unofficial but Supported Kernel Patches

[Randy.Dunlap]

On Mon, 13 May 2002, Tomas Szepe wrote:

| > [Randy.Dunlap <rddunlap@osdl.org>, May-12 2002, Sun, 16:32 -0700]
| >
| > What I would like is for someone to maintain a set of
| > "required" patches to each new kernel --
| > "required" here meaning "these patches are needed for kernel
| > x.y.z to build or boot cleanly."
| >
| > The patchsets would contain only compile/link fixes and
| > critical logic fixes to release and pre-release kernels.
|
| Do you mean something even more
| "select fault_and_patch from kernel group by release;" than
| http://www.codemonkey.org.uk/Linux-2.5.html
| ?

That might be what I suggested, except that I can't find it
there... That's a status/TODO list.

-- 
~Randy

Re: [OT] Unofficial but Supported Kernel Patches

[John Weber]

Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2002, Tomas Szepe wrote:
> 
> | > [Randy.Dunlap <rddunlap@osdl.org>, May-12 2002, Sun, 16:32 -0700]
> | >
> | > What I would like is for someone to maintain a set of
> | > "required" patches to each new kernel --
> | > "required" here meaning "these patches are needed for kernel
> | > x.y.z to build or boot cleanly."
> | >
> | > The patchsets would contain only compile/link fixes and
> | > critical logic fixes to release and pre-release kernels.
> |
> | Do you mean something even more
> | "select fault_and_patch from kernel group by release;" than
> | http://www.codemonkey.org.uk/Linux-2.5.html
> | ?
> 
> That might be what I suggested, except that I can't find it
> there... That's a status/TODO list.
> 

Right now I maintain a kernel tree on linuxhq to which I apply all of 
the patches posted on the kernel mailing list (without filtering at 
all).  I don't think this was very useful, so I was thinking about 
simply providing a list of all maintained (but currently not applied) 
patches -- things like Rik van Riel's VM, and perhaps put up all of the 
patches being developed by Universities and other research institutions 
willing to share their stuff.

I didn't think providing patches needed to compile would be very useful, 
  because it seems that many people do this already (most notably, Alan 
Cox does this for Marcelo, and Dave Jones does this for Linus).

I inherited linuxhq.com and would like to make it into something more 
useful.  Since kernelnewbies does such a wonderful job catering to the 
newbies, I figured that linuxhq needed a new niche (and I needed 
something funner to do with my time).  So please let me know what types 
of things you kernel folk would like to see but have no time to do 
themselves, and I can accomodate.

Some ideas:

[1] Performance Measurements.  (Though I would need some help from the 
kernel community to identify which suites are the most useful to run the 
kernels against).

[2] Kernel Programming Documentation.  This would mostly document the 
kernel API, and important kernel data structures, as well as "good 
habits" in kernel development -- like "don't use virt_to_bus use 
blah,blah,blah".  Information like this might be useful to kernel 
janitors.  (This probably exists already).

[3] Necessary patches for each release.

I will do any and maybe all things that folks find useful...
other suggestions also welcome.

Re: [OT] Unofficial but Supported Kernel Patches

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> I am trying to put a list together of all the unofficial kernel patches. 
>   I am speaking of systems like Rik's RMAP VM, and others like it.
> 
> I want to put up a page on linuxhq.com with all of these patches.  If 
> you would like to have your maintained patches (or trees) listed, please 
> shoot me an email with a description of your tree (or patch) and what is 
> so special about it :).  Also include URLs, emails, or anything else 
> you'd like published.

Software suspend, currently in 2.4-ac, http://swsusp.sf.net/.
								Pavel
-- 
Philips Velo 1: 1"x4"x8", 300gram, 60, 12MB, 40bogomips, linux, mutt,
details at http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/velo/index.html.

Re: [OT] Unofficial but Supported Kernel Patches

[John Levon]

On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 01:23:27PM -0400, John Weber wrote:

> I was thinking more about patches that are not included in the kernel 
> right now, and perhaps more research patches that may never be included 
> in the kernel.

What do you think that list is ??

(Btw, if anyone knows of things missing, do tell me)

regards
john

-- 
"So what you're saying is "screw the disabled" and you want us to do the
 same ?  No thanks..."
	- Ian Hixie, bug 25537

Re: [OT] Unofficial but Supported Kernel Patches

[Rob Landley]

On Sunday 12 May 2002 11:01 pm, John Weber wrote:

> [2] Kernel Programming Documentation.  This would mostly document the
> kernel API, and important kernel data structures, as well as "good
> habits" in kernel development -- like "don't use virt_to_bus use
> blah,blah,blah".  Information like this might be useful to kernel
> janitors.  (This probably exists already).

Yeah, but filtering, collating, editing, and generally putting together a 
good, high-quality, well indexed collection never hurts.

The stuff in linux/Documentation generally seems more reference material than 
instruction material.  (Coverage is spotty and indexing is nonexistent, but 
it's way better than nothing.)  There's buildable docbook documentation in 
the source tarball that in theory could be blasted to HTML and posted online, 
and that might be nice to have a standard location for.  (If there is one 
already, I missed it.)

Try "make htmldocs" (and its cousins, make pdfdocs and make psdocs).

> [3] Necessary patches for each release.
>
> I will do any and maybe all things that folks find useful...
> other suggestions also welcome.

Actually, what I'd like to see is some kind of voting on the stability of 
releases.  (If you had users who could indicate "I currently use THIS kernel" 
and then keep a running tally of where everybody's at...

Not so much for the stable series (modulo 2.4.11) but for the -ac series, 
knowing which ones are considered relatively stable would be fun.  And 
knowing which 2.5 variants are going to at least finish booting before they 
eating your filesystem might be good. :)

Possibly you could have a version specific message board.  (Grab the 
slashcode or something and post a "story" about each new release, then 
collect them into topics.)  Linux-kernel isn't necessarily the best place for 
"comments on 2.5.15-pre-314159", because there's no real version sorting.  
We've got 2.5 development, 2.4 development, 2.5-dj, 2.4-ac, the occasional 
burp from 2.2, and all sorts of general theoretical development unrelated to 
any actual kerenel.  (Random traffic for the O(1) scheduler patches, preempt 
patches, Keith Owens' new build system, periodic CML2 flamewars...)  The 
noise level's a bit high to try to follow specific topics of interest...

Being able to thread that out a little better doesn't strike me as a bad 
thing at all...

Rob

Re: [OT] Unofficial but Supported Kernel Patches

[John Levon]

On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 09:43:26AM -0400, Rob Landley wrote:

> it's way better than nothing.)  There's buildable docbook documentation in 
> the source tarball that in theory could be blasted to HTML and posted online, 
> and that might be nice to have a standard location for.  (If there is one 
> already, I missed it.)

http://kernelnewbies.org/documents/

john

-- 
"I personally think Windows NT will be the mainstream operating system within a few years."
"My belief: Linux will never go mainstream."
"I've always said that Linux could become a serious challenger to Microsoft's Windows NT."
	- Jesse Berst

Re: [OT] Unofficial but Supported Kernel Patches

[Dave Jones]

On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 09:56:08PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
 > On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 09:43:26AM -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
 > 
 > > it's way better than nothing.)  There's buildable docbook documentation in 
 > > the source tarball that in theory could be blasted to HTML and posted online, 
 > > and that might be nice to have a standard location for.  (If there is one 
 > > already, I missed it.)
 > 
 > http://kernelnewbies.org/documents/

The pdf's there are somewhat up to date, the html version has fallen
behind quite a bit due to lack of time on my part. Christoph Hellwig
offered to update that, but I believe he's also been quite busy of
late.

In theory it could be mostly automated. The only reason I didn't do it
already was every time I updated it so far, the names of the html
files changed, which meant lots of manual 'cvs add' & 'cvs remove'
operations to kernelnewbies CVS.

iirc, Christoph had a workaround for this problem..

-- 
| Dave Jones.        http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs