[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change
    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.

    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-10-22 02:45    [W:0.020 / U:0.852 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site