Objectives of the 2.5 kernel

Objectives of the 2.5 kernel

Post by mlw » Mon, 31 Dec 2001 04:35:37



Does anyone know what the objectives of the 2.5 kernel are?
 
 
 

Objectives of the 2.5 kernel

Post by Erik Funkenbusc » Mon, 31 Dec 2001 10:10:51



Quote:> Does anyone know what the objectives of the 2.5 kernel are?

Yes, to be unstable.  ;)

 
 
 

Objectives of the 2.5 kernel

Post by yt.. » Mon, 31 Dec 2001 10:17:04



> Does anyone know what the objectives of the 2.5 kernel are?

One of them appears to be fixing NFS client race conditions, something
which IMHO should have been done years ago.

Another reason I try not to use linux in any sort of NFS regard.

-----.

--
Theres a hole in the world like a great black pit and
its filled with people who are filled with shit and the
vermin of the world inhabit it

 
 
 

Objectives of the 2.5 kernel

Post by Tom Wilso » Mon, 31 Dec 2001 11:18:17



> Does anyone know what the objectives of the 2.5 kernel are?

Linux Magazine had a write-up about it in their January 2002 issue.
I haven't had time to read the darned thing, though. It's still in the
mail pile. :(
 
 
 

Objectives of the 2.5 kernel

Post by Spiceru » Mon, 31 Dec 2001 14:40:00



Quote:

> Linux Magazine had a write-up about it in their January 2002 issue. I
> haven't had time to read the darned thing, though. It's still in the
> mail pile. :(

I'm hoping to see a future article on 2.5 in Linux Journal, the only
remaining true print Linux magazine I know about.

I have to admit that Linux Magazine finally had a good issue in its Jan.
2002 issue with informative Linux information.  Unfortunately, I haven't
been as impressed with their content ever since they've accepted MS ads.
It isn't the ads themselves that have put me off the magazine, but rather
the other "Announcements" pertaining to MS (being passed of as legitimate
articles), and the scathing editorials telling us to deal with their
decision (Indeed, the last "Shutdown" article was an insulting piece, IMO,
trying to regurgitate the 'Linux isn't ready for the desktop' fud that MS
has been sprouting for about 2 years now?).  Too bad that they don't
understand that when it is my money paying their costs through my
subscription, it is them that need to 'deal with it'.

If I wanted MS ads and articles, I would have subscribed to a ZD print
magazine, not an 'alleged' Linux magazine.  My subscription is up in 2
months...I won't be renewing.

 
 
 

Objectives of the 2.5 kernel

Post by Charlie Ebe » Mon, 31 Dec 2001 21:22:22




>> Linux Magazine had a write-up about it in their January 2002 issue. I
>> haven't had time to read the darned thing, though. It's still in the
>> mail pile. :(

> I'm hoping to see a future article on 2.5 in Linux Journal, the only
> remaining true print Linux magazine I know about.

> I have to admit that Linux Magazine finally had a good issue in its Jan.
> 2002 issue with informative Linux information.  Unfortunately, I haven't
> been as impressed with their content ever since they've accepted MS ads.
> It isn't the ads themselves that have put me off the magazine, but rather
> the other "Announcements" pertaining to MS (being passed of as legitimate
> articles), and the scathing editorials telling us to deal with their
> decision (Indeed, the last "Shutdown" article was an insulting piece, IMO,
> trying to regurgitate the 'Linux isn't ready for the desktop' fud that MS
> has been sprouting for about 2 years now?).  Too bad that they don't
> understand that when it is my money paying their costs through my
> subscription, it is them that need to 'deal with it'.

> If I wanted MS ads and articles, I would have subscribed to a ZD print
> magazine, not an 'alleged' Linux magazine.  My subscription is up in 2
> months...I won't be renewing.

Gardner Group.

--

Charlie

 
 
 

Objectives of the 2.5 kernel

Post by Tom Wilso » Tue, 01 Jan 2002 02:45:59




> > Linux Magazine had a write-up about it in their January 2002 issue. I
> > haven't had time to read the darned thing, though. It's still in the
> > mail pile. :(

> I'm hoping to see a future article on 2.5 in Linux Journal, the only
> remaining true print Linux magazine I know about.

> I have to admit that Linux Magazine finally had a good issue in its Jan.
> 2002 issue with informative Linux information.  Unfortunately, I haven't
> been as impressed with their content ever since they've accepted MS ads.

Sometimes ugly things have to be done to pay the rent.

Quote:> It isn't the ads themselves that have put me off the magazine, but rather
> the other "Announcements" pertaining to MS (being passed of as legitimate
> articles), and the scathing editorials telling us to deal with their
> decision (Indeed, the last "Shutdown" article was an insulting piece, IMO,
> trying to regurgitate the 'Linux isn't ready for the desktop' fud that MS
> has been sprouting for about 2 years now?).  Too bad that they don't
> understand that when it is my money paying their costs through my
> subscription, it is them that need to 'deal with it'.

Well, it'll be interesting to see if the negative feedback has an effect.
The editorial columns have been pretty testy.
Quote:

> If I wanted MS ads and articles, I would have subscribed to a ZD print
> magazine, not an 'alleged' Linux magazine.  My subscription is up in 2
> months...I won't be renewing.

 
 
 

Objectives of the 2.5 kernel

Post by GreyClou » Tue, 01 Jan 2002 05:52:12





>> Does anyone know what the objectives of the 2.5 kernel are?

> Yes, to be unstable.  ;)

Well, at least we now have established exactly where you stand.
winkies or not.
 
 
 

Objectives of the 2.5 kernel

Post by Erik Funkenbusc » Tue, 01 Jan 2002 07:09:00






> >> Does anyone know what the objectives of the 2.5 kernel are?

> > Yes, to be unstable.  ;)

> Well, at least we now have established exactly where you stand.
> winkies or not.

That was a joke.  That's why they're called "development" kernels.
 
 
 

1. kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Third and final attempt.  Original sent on May 2, second mail sent on
May 14, still no response from Linus.

Linus, kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the main 2.5 kernel tree.
It is faster, better documented, easier to write build rules in, has
better install facilities, allows separate source and object trees, can
do concurrent builds from the same source tree and is significantly
more accurate than the existing kernel build system.

The current state is

  kbuild-2.5-core-14            Fits any 2.4 and 2.5 kernel.
  kbuild-2.5-common-2.5.15-4    2.5.15 arch independent files.

There are several arch dependent files for 2.5.15 or earlier kernels.

  kbuild-2.5-i386-2.5.15-2
  kbuild-2.5-sparc64-2.5.15-1
  kbuild-2.5-s390-2.5.15-1
  kbuild-2.5-s390x-2.5.15-1
  kbuild-2.5-ppc-2.5.14-1
  kbuild-2.5-sh-2.5.12-1 (also fits 2.5.13)
  kbuild-2.5-ia64-2.5.10-020426-1 (last Mosberger patch)

That covers most of the architectures that currently build on 2.5.

This version has only been tested on CML1.  kbuild 2.5 has support for
an older version of CML2 but it has not been tested on newer versions
of CML2.

Before I send you the kbuild 2.5 patch, how do you want to handle it?

* Coexist with the existing kernel build for one or two releases or
  delete the old build system when kbuild 2.5 goes in?

  Coexistence for a few days gives a backout, just in case.  It also
  gives a kernel release where the old and new code can be compared,
  useful for architectures that have not been converted yet.

  Deleting the old system at the same time means that unconverted
  architectures cannot build.  OTOH many architectures are already
  broken in the 2.5 kernel.

* I need a quiet period of 24-48 hours (no changes at all) after a new
  kernel release to bring kbuild 2.5 up to the latest release, before
  sending you the complete patch.  Which kernel release do you want
  kbuild 2.5 against?

I would like kbuild 2.5 to go in in the near future.  Keeping up to
date with kernel changes is a significant effort, Makefiles change all
the time, especially when major subsystems like sound and usb are
reorganised.  There are also some changes to architecture code to do it
right under kbuild 2.5 and tracking those against kernel changes can be
painful.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999

iD8DBQE85DXKi4UHNye0ZOoRAsRyAJwP52HqsmJhZKNIiJKQUScLjD/cOgCffzTc
Uj1qHkvIszUfOYQtInekCYY=
=sxcO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in

More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

2. L2 Cache not seen...

3. kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel

4. Pass-thru SCSI driver for SunOS 4.1.x?

5. Converting the 2.5 kernel to kbuild 2.5

6. syslog output question

7. kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 2

8. 1.99.7 mcdx prob

9. Solaris 2.5 Kernel Parameters and Kernel rebuild

10. kernel panic! (asus A7V with kernel 2.5.xx)

11. nbd driver for 2.5+: fix for 2.5 block layer (improved)

12. how to install solaris 2.5 x86 to 2.5 gig WD HD

13. FS: Solaris 2.5 Desktop (CDE) and/or Solaris 2.5 Server Packages for x86 desktops