Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1999-36,: Re: I vote for updated RAID and KNFSD

# Re: I vote for updated RAID and KNFSD

David Weinehall (tao@acc.umu.se)
Wed, 8 Sep 1999 21:51:30 +0200 (MET DST)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Rui Sousa: "Re: Error during make"
- Previous message: Johannes Erdfelt: "Re: USB Floppy support?"

On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, M Carling wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, David Weinehall wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, M Carling wrote:
> >
> > > My main point was that the thread had gone on for a dozen posts without
> > > anyone specifying whether they were talking about 2.2 or 2.3 and how
> > > clearly this shows that some developers make little if any distinction
> > > between the developmental and the "stable" series.
> >
> > You missed the beginning of the thread, I guess. The reason this thread
> > came to life was when Alan decided not to include some patches to knfsd &
> > raid in v2.2.11 (or was it 12?); thus it's pretty clear that we (at least
> > in the beginning of the thread) was talking of v2.2 kernels.
>
> I think I read the whole thread. At least on the archive aerver, it never
> mentioned 2.2 or 2.3 until I brought it up.
>
> I was also aware of the earlier RAID thread which was clearly about 2.2.
> Actually, Alan included the new RAID code and Linus rejected it.

Ok, still the point is that this thread started because of this decision.
Sorry if I blamed it on poor Alan...
> > The problem is, that most people won't use an unstable kernel on
> > production systems, still they want new drivers to support their hardware.
> > And it's impossible to keep track of 3 kernel trees; just 2 trees is
> > almost one too much; some bugfixes takes quite some time to propagate from
> > one tree to the other.
>
> Production systems already have the drivers they need. If they didn't,
> they couldn't be running in production, could they?

A lot of companies get new hardware over time. Companies that realise that
they want RAID, for instance...
> > > Everyone seems to agree that the "stable" kernels could and should be more
> > > stable. I've suggested a methodology for achieving increased stability.
> > > Several posters don't like my suggestion, but they haven't offered an
> > > alternative.
> >
> > The only way to get stable kernels is that more persons test the unstable
> > kernels in my opinion. The trouble is that the circle of developers that
> > are most likely to test the kernels have a limited set of hardware, uses a
> > limited set of software, etc.
>
> Obviously, more testing would help, but how to get more people to test?
> Also, it is clearly not the _only_ way to get better stability, as I have
> suggested another way.

I don't think that would work, because there's a lot of developers that
just have one machine; a machine that they only dare to run kernels on
that they can trust at least to some degree not to kiss their files
good bye. Those developers wouldn't be able to participate and supply
new/updated drivers unless there was some development going on in the
stable kernels as well.

Still, if there was more testers of the unstable kernels, the development
cycles would become shorter, thus making the cycle a bit more friendly to
stability...

/David
_ _
// David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\
// Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky //
\> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </

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

- Next message: Rui Sousa: "Re: Error during make"
- Previous message: Johannes Erdfelt: "Re: USB Floppy support?"