linux-kernel - Re: Linux 2.6.21

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:11:19 -0400
From:	Stephen Clark <Stephen.Clark@...lark.us>
To:	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.21

Krzysztof Halasa wrote:

>Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de> writes:
>
>  
>
>>Look at the facts:
>>8 out of 14 regressions in my current list were reported in March or earlier.
>>And for many regressions fixed it took several weeks until debugging 
>>by a kernel developer was started.
>>
>>We do not lack testers for getting bug reports quickly.
>>We lack developer manpower for debugging the many regression reports.
>>    
>>
>
>Quite possible, given the (very) limited range of the bugs. Most people
>just can't debug them.
>
>This isn't IMHO fundamentally wrong, and releasing a ".0" kernel with
>known problems isn't fundamentally wrong either.
>
>What is missing is easily accessible KNOWN_PROBLEMS information for
>released kernels. While I think your work documenting etc. known
>regressions is a very good thing, publishing it with the released
>kernels (certainly .0 and next stable releases, perhaps "quite stable"
>rc versions as well) would be ideal.
>
>A pressure for fixing the bugs is, obviously, the other very good thing.
>
>  
>
>>>2.6.20 was actually really good. Yes, it had some regressions, but I do 
>>>believe that it was one of the least buggy releases we've had. The process 
>>>_worked_.
>>>      
>>>
>
>I the process worked with 2.6.21 as well. Obviously no two releases
>are equal, one has to be better than the other.
>
>  
>
>>>>I'm not satisfied with the result, and the world won't stop turning when 
>>>>I'm not tracking 2.6.22-rc regressions.
>>>>        
>>>>
>
>Anyway, I and many others are satisfied with the result. I think it's
>one of the few "quite recent" things which are a great improvements.
>Other such things are using that weird git thing :-) and perhaps the
>most important - the length of devel cycle under control (I mean the
>lack of "2.5 series" thing).
>
>  
>
>>But I am not happy with the current state of released kernels.
>>    
>>
>
>We've got stable series.
>With KNOWN_PROBLEMS information, sysadmins can decide if they can
>safely upgrade to .0 or if they have to wait for .123. Pressing
>the responsible people to fix the problems in .123 (would) help
>it greatly.
>  
>
The biggest problem I see is that developers want to make
 improvements in an area, like ide, but they don't seem to
look at the old code and make it  sure the new code supports
everything the old code did. This causes hardware that used
to work to not work, or work in a degraded fashion.

My $.02
Steve

-- 

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety, 
deserve neither liberty nor safety."  (Ben Franklin)

"The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty 
decreases."  (Thomas Jefferson)



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/