[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:0.177 / U:8.020 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site