[RFC] Moving Intrepid to 2.6.27 kernel

[Jeff Schroeder]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 4:00 AM,  <ubuntu-devel-request at lists.ubuntu.com> wrote:
> From: Matt Zimmerman <mdz at ubuntu.com>
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 04:02:47PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
>> As many of you know, we've continued a tree called ubuntu-next which is
>> currently following 2.6.27 upstream kernel. It has been kept in sync
>> with intrepid's 2.6.26 based kernel tree.
>
> I have been in all-day meetings this past week and did not see this thread
> until now.  I think this change requires stronger justification than I've
> seen so far.
>
>> In recent weeks it has become apparent that we will need several updates
>> to 2.6.26 in order to have a stable kernel for 8.10. These include:
>>
>>  * Updated mac80211, which will require updated wlan drivers in order
>>    to fix major regressions with suspend/resume and wlan devices.
>>  * Updated alsa-1.0.17 drivers for new codecs
>>  * xen64 paravirt
>>  * Updated KVM
>>
>> These are just the major things we need to do.
>
> Why are these needed in order to have a stable kernel for 8.10?  Major
> updates are the opposite of stability.  What we want is a kernel which fixes
> more bugs than it introduces while introducing the most important driver
> updates we need for the release.
>
>> The good thing is, all of this is already in 2.6.27, and is ready to be
>> uploaded on a moments notice. It has been tested by myself for quite some
>> time, and others on the team have also tested it.
>
> The amount of testing it has received is trivial compared to what 2.6.26 has
> seen.  It's been tested on our certified systems and by many thousands of
> community members on their own hardware.  The fact that it's been smoke
> tested by a few people doesn't give me much confidence that it's free of
> serious regressions.
>
>> Yesterday, we discussed the possibility of moving to 2.6.27 before
>> feature freeze on #ubuntu-kernel during out weekly IRC meeting. In
>> attendance were the kernel team, Steve Langasek, Chuck Short and Soren
>> Hansen. Soren and Chuck gave particularly good reasons for moving to
>> 2.6.27, which included xen64 and updated KVM.
>
> Where can I find the summary and log of the meeting?
>
>> Steve had questions about the particulars of this move, and I believe we
>> answered all of his questions satisfyingly, but we agreed to take this
>> to a wider audience before making a commitment.
>>
>> So fire away with any concerns or issues that this might cause. If we
>> are going to do it, it needs to be decided by early next week.
>
> I was in meetings all week and didn't see this until now.  Mario has raised
> a concern in this thread which I think needs to be addressed.  I also have
> the following questions:

Mario's concern is bunk with commit
7946612de2087e163308e26034286fc2dc9dacf1 fyi.
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=7946612de2087e163308e26034286fc2dc9dacf1

> What are the known regressions from 2.6.26 to 2.6.27?

Most of the current regressions are here:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/8/23/105

But the majority of them are already fixed and here is the metabug:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11167


+1 for 2.6.17 if you are able to get it through the certification
battery of tests.

-- 
Jeff Schroeder

Don't drink and derive, alcohol and analysis don't mix.
http://www.digitalprognosis.com