Messages in this thread | | | From | Grant Coady <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change | Date | Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:15:01 +1100 |
| |
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:41:24 -0400, you wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:52:02 BST, Alex Howells said: >> Requirements for me to put a kernel on a given server would be: > >> * supports the hardware >The problem is that "supports" is often a fuzzy jello-like substance you >try to nail to a tree. You mention the R8169 and e1000 drivers - if they >bring the device up, but have issues under corner cases, is that "supports" >or not? > >> * no security holes [in options I enable] >Similarly for "no security holes". At *BEST*, you'll get "no *known* *major* >security holes", unless you feel like auditing the entire source tree. There's >a whole slew of bugs that we can't even agree if they *are* security bugs or >just plain bugs - see Linus's rant on the subject a few months back. > >> * works reliably, under load/stress. >And you win the trifecta - I don't think we've *ever* shipped a Linux kernel >that worked reliably under the proper "beat on the scheduler/VM corner case" >load/stress testing. Again, the best you can hope for is "doesn't fall over >under non-pathological non-corner-case loads when sufficient resources are >available so the kernel has a fighting chance".
>... Doing 'make -j100' on a >single Core2 Duo is gonna be painful, no matter what.
Not painful at all, make -j100 is four seconds faster than a make -j5 on a Core2Duo here with slamd64-12.1 (real: 3m21 vs 3m21).
Grant. -- http://bugsplatter.id.au
| |