> On Wed, 08 Sep 1999, M Carling wrote:
> > I agree that having to deal with old patches is bad, but it is a known
> > risk in using non-standard patches, even if they are widely used. Because
> > the RAID code changed in a way that was not backwards-compatible, a choice
> > must be made between breaking a standard kernel feature in a stable kernel
> > and leaving people using the currently non-standard (from a kernel
> > perspective) feature with the hassle of patch incompatibilities. Both
> > options are bad. Getting a stable 2.4 out with the new RAID code solves
> > both problems.
>
> The RAID code in the current "official stable kernel" is mostly
> non-functional. I don't know a respectable administrator that would
> use the existing RAID code in a production system while a very "stable"
> newer RAID system is available. In effect, the RAID code in the
> current stable kernel is "broken" and needs the bug fix as implemented
> in 0.90. That this bug fix requires a backup and restore, which should
> not be an issue for someone serious about RAID, is inconsequential. If
> someone doesn't want to upgrade to fix the RAID bug, then let them stay
> on 2.2.12.
btw, in your very next post, you say...
> Which means that we won't get the RAID code for quite a while. Great,
> I guess I can look forward to more downtime on servers if a disk fails
> because of the "broken" RAID in the official kernel...
>
> fwr
I suspect you mispoke in there somewhere ;-)
Anyway..
I think that this thread should die now. The decision of what to do and
when to do it is in the right hands. In the meantime, we all know how
to 'use the source Luke' right? (of course we do.. otherwise we wouldn't
be jabbering away on a development list)
-Mike
-
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/