Messages in this thread | | | From | Mikael Pettersson <> | Date | Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:54:50 +0200 | Subject | Re: v2.6 vs v3.0 |
| |
Jens Axboe writes: > On Mon, Sep 30 2002, Bill Davidsen wrote: > > On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > 2.5 IDE stability should be just as good as 2.4-ac. > > > > A laudable goal. > > If you know of any points where this is currently not true, I'd like to > hear about it. I'm considering this goal reached. Whether 2.4-ac is at > the level we want is a different story.
2.5.39 IDE is nowhere near as stable as 2.4.20-pre8:
- I have several boxes with decent PCI chipsets (BX, HX) but old disks. With 2.5.39, they tend to spew a couple of ..._intr errors on boot. (Sorry, can't be more specific right now. I won't be near those boxes until Saturday.)
- Same ..._intr errors on my 486 with a qd6580 VLB controller. It also has, in post-2.5.36 kernels, an instant-reboot problem which occurs whenever I pass the ide0=qd65xx kernel option required to activate its chipset support. (I _believe_ this is because the code does something, like a kmalloc, which is illegal at the early point IDE's __setup runs.) With 2.5.3x kernels, this box also sees a steady stream of spurious interrupts while doing a kernel recompile, something it doesn't see in older kernels.
- My Intel AL440LX box (440LX chipset, 20G Quantum Fireball) worked brilliantly up to 2.5.36, but hangs *hard* with 2.5.39 as soon as I tar zxf the kernel source tarball. (May or may not be IDE. I'll try a minimal 2.5.39 tonight.)
All of these work perfectly with 2.4.20-pre8, indeed all previous 2.4 standard kernels, 2.2 + Andre's ide-patch, and with the exception of the ..._intr errors, 2.5.36.
OTOH, I have three boxes which do appear to work fine with 2.5.39.
/Mikael - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |