Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change | From | Valdis.Kletnieks@vt ... | Date | Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:41:24 -0400 |
| |
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] | |