2.6.22-rc5: known regressions with patches v2
PATCH 1/2 2.6.22-rc5: known regressions with patches v2
Hi all,
Here is a list of some known regressions in 2.6.22-rc5 with patches available.
Feel free to add new regressions/remove fixed etc.
http://kernelnewbies.org/known_regressions
(BTW. There is a new category called "Will be fixed in 2.6.23")
Unclassified
Subject : Device hang when offlining a CPU due to IRQ misrouting
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/31/419
Submitter : Darrick J. Wong <[email protected]>
Patch : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/19/422
Status : patch available
Subject : long freezes on thinkpad t60
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/24/100
Submitter : Miklos Szeredi <[email protected]>
Patch : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/16/81
Status : patch was suggested
FBDEV
Subject : mach64 breakage in 2.6.22
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/14/73
Submitter : Olaf Hering <[email protected]>
Patch : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/14/273
Status : patch was suggested
HWMON
Subject : latest coretemp changes break s2ram
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/16/173
Submitter : Soeren Sonnenburg <[email protected]>
commit 67f363b1f6a31cf5027a97372f64bcced4f05ba6
Patch : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/16/177
Status : patch available
Regards,
Michal
Quoted 7 lines · Michal Piotrowski
Subject : long freezes on thinkpad t60
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/24/100
Submitter : Miklos Szeredi <[email protected]>Handled-By Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>Patch : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/16/81
Status : patch was suggested
This one is fixed, and tested by Miklos. It's commit fa490cfd15: "Fix possible runqueue lock starvation in wait_task_inactive()".
Linus
Linus Torvalds pisze:
Quoted 10 lines · Michal Piotrowski
Quoted 6 lines
Subject : long freezes on thinkpad t60
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/24/100
Submitter : Miklos Szeredi <[email protected]>Handled-By Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>Patch : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/16/81
Status : patch was suggestedThis one is fixed, and tested by Miklos. It's commit
fa490cfd15: "Fix possible runqueue lock starvation inwait_task_inactive()".
Thanks for the information.
BTW. Björn noticed that I accidentally removed this regression.
Subject : OProfile issues
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/12/207
Submitter : Stephane Eranian <[email protected]>
Patch : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/12/392
Status : patch was suggested
Regards,
Michal
Signature · 2 lines
LOG http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/log/
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
PATCH 1/2 2.6.22-rc5: known regressions with patches v2
Hello! I'm a newbuy in kernel development.
Now I'm just trying to find out what is going in it =).
I noticed this:
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
(BTW. There is a new category called "Will be fixed in 2.6.23")
Is it really important to release 2.6.22 as soon as possible? I think kernel should be 99% stable. Why not to wait for patches on known regressions and release more or less stable 2.6.22?
Thanks!
Best wishes, Niam.
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Quoted 7 lines
We have patches for "very high non-preempt latency in
context_struct_compute_av()" and "list_addcorruption.prev->nextshould be next (f7d28794), but wasf0df8ed4(prev=f0df8ed4) Kernel Bug atlib/list_debug.c:33", but both are too intrusive.Anyway, those bugs are not regressions.
Are you going to release 2.6.22 with this bugs?? But question wasn't on this subject ...
The question was "why linux kernel release should have some bugs that would be fixed fixed in future?"
Let's wait and publish kernel w/o known bugs. Let's wait for some time, let's publish 2.6.22-rc_last, test it for some time(2 weeks for example), fix bugs if any and after _test_period_of_whole_kernel_ but not _separate_patches/parts_ of kernel release stable one!
Quoted 8 lines · On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:39:50 +0300 "Ni@m" <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 6 lines
We have patches for "very high non-preempt latency in
context_struct_compute_av()" and "list_addcorruption.prev->nextshould be next (f7d28794), but wasf0df8ed4(prev=f0df8ed4) Kernel Bug atlib/list_debug.c:33", but both are too intrusive.Anyway, those bugs are not regressions.
The question was "why linux kernel release should have some bugs that would be fixed fixed in future?"
Because those bug fixes are intrusive so will potentially cause more other bugs that will need fixing - so make the kernel a worse not a better one in the short term.
Quoted 1 line
Let's wait and publish kernel w/o known bugs.
That would be a bit like waiting for a Debian release and never happen.
Alan
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
That would be a bit like waiting for a Debian release and never happen.
Ok, <offtop>but Debian seems to be stable and sometimes their teem make releases =).</offtop>
Quoted 12 lines · Alan Cox
Quoted 8 lines · On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:39:50 +0300 "Ni@m" <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 6 lines
We have patches for "very high non-preempt latency in
context_struct_compute_av()" and "list_addcorruption.prev->nextshould be next (f7d28794), but wasf0df8ed4(prev=f0df8ed4) Kernel Bug atlib/list_debug.c:33", but both are too intrusive.Anyway, those bugs are not regressions.
The question was "why linux kernel release should have some bugs that would be fixed fixed in future?"
Quoted 7 lines
Because those bug fixes are intrusive so will potentially cause more other bugs that will need fixing - so make the kernel a worse not a better one in the short term.
Quoted 1 line
Let's wait and publish kernel w/o known bugs.
That would be a bit like waiting for a Debian release and never happen.
I'm trying to imagine this - Linux 2.6 "Debian style" roadmap:
15-VII-2007 - release of Linux 2.6.22
1-VIII-2007 - freeze
15-II-2009 - release of Linux 2.6.23
1-III-2009 - freeze
1-IX-2010 - release of Linux 2.6.24
:)
Quoted 3 lines
Alan
Regards,
Michal
Signature · 2 lines
LOG http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/log/