> On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, M Carling wrote:
> >
> > Except for many of us (myself included) have been applying the RAID
> > patches since the 2.2 series began. This is more than just a hassle since
> > because the RAID isn't directly in the kernel we don't always see RAID
> > patches for every kernel release. Sometimes we can get away w/ just applying
> > an old patch, but other times this causes problems.
>
> I agree that it's a hassle. That's why I'd like to see the changes get
> into 2.3 which I'd like to see frozen as soon as possible so that we can
> have these features in 2.4.
>
> > > Now that companies are beginning to run Linux on production systems, the
> > > carefree attitude toward "stable" kernels has to change. I'd love to be
> > > able to recommend Linux to my clients on Wall Street, but there have to be
> > > stable kernels first. That means nothing changes unless it's a bug fix.
> > > Everything else (updated drivers, new features, code cleanups) waits for
> > > the next major release. Otherwise, there is little difference between odd
> > > and even numbered kernels.
> >
> > We hardly need to have limitations put on us from anyone.
>
> Huh?!? The only people who limit what goes into the kernels are Linus
> and Alan. What I recommend to my clients does not impose a limitation on
> you.
Exactly my point. Your comment that "Now that companies are beginning
to run Linux on production systems, the carefree attitude toward "stable"
kernels has to change." is what I was commenting on. That represents the idea
that because some special group of people are using Linux that we must limit
Linux in some way, such as upgrading very needed parts of the kernel.
> > Those who
> > run production systems should have other systems on which they test things
> > before actually putting them in place. They should also be watching to see
> > what others say about particular kernels before using them. They should
> > also (scary thought) read the change list, and see what changed, and what
> > they might need to update.
>
> We do all of that. In fact, some of us even read this list. But that does
> not make it ok to deliberately break existing functionality within a
> "stable" kernel series. Consider that we must often upgrade kernels on an
> emergency basis as security vulnerabilities are fixed.
Think of those of us who have to upgrade to a new kernel, then
discover that the patches we have to apply (ie: RAID patches) won't apply
cleanly! This is NOT good. I've had to go through a couple of times and
apply the raid patch by hand, and I've been bitten by doing that once or
twice, badly. It would seem to me that most people who are using RAID
under linux are using the later RAID, because it's that much better. I
would agree that perhaps it should be put in as a seperate CONFIG option,
and even marked 'experimental' if people are truely concerned, but it needs
to get updated with the regular kernel releases.
Stephen
-
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/