Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change
From: Valdis . Kletnieks
Date: Tue Oct 21 2008 - 20:42:18 EST
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"
> * 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.
Description: PGP signature