Re: [uml-devel] Re: [uml-user] [POLL] Putting UML/2.4 into fixes-only mode
On Thursday 27 January 2005 03:22, D. Bahi wrote: I would like a 2.4 that is stable. with a working hostfs. Tried 2.4.27-bs1? (that i can run valgrind against - heh, not umls fault here.) I've never seen valgrind actually working against UML - Jeff Dike did some work on Valgrind on this area time ago, but it wasn't merged and the Valgrind author said that Valgrind does not at all supports program using the clone call. And UML is one heavy user of this call. Also, the uml web site needs to be authoritative. building the above should not require patching from additional sources announced on the list. That said, 2.4 and 2.6 are both 'stable' kernel branches that have had quite a bit of UML development in them. So, if it helps future maintaining of both 2.4 and 2.6, at least until 2.7 appears, then do what you need to do. please don't abandon 2.4 until 2.7 is well under way. This does not work... nobody knows if 2.7 will ever start *at all* (really). Maybe you could break up the 2.4 patches into 'stable' 'testing' and 'experimental' ? Time is limited - managing two trees (in this case, two 2.4 trees) and porting patches back and forth between them is a hard, difficult, error-prone work. However, I've not claimed abandoning the 2.4 tree. However, who uses the 2.4 tree wants stability over everything else (in most cases), otherwise would use the 2.6 tree. So, actually, we cannot debug invasive patches on 2.4: you need lots of users testing and reporting about them and helping to narrow down possible bugs. So, for instance, it would be useless to backport the /proc/sysemu feature (which was a bit tricky to get right on 2.6 already, especially because uncovered some bugs in the SYSEMU host patch). Blaisorblade wrote: Jeff, I've seen the beginning of your work on back-porting all the patches from 2.6 to 2.4... It's a huge work, but what is more important, it could obviously hurt stability... So, I'd suggest to follow this policy to choose the work to merge: - reduce *a lot* what is going to be merged... no new features, no code cleanups (especially NOT the Makefiles cleanups)... - concentrate on stability... and on backing out the hostfs rewrite. -- Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade Linux registered user n. 292729 http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IntelliVIEW -- Interactive Reporting Tool for open source databases. Create drag--drop reports. Save time by over 75%! Publish reports on the web. Export to DOC, XLS, RTF, etc. Download a FREE copy at http://www.intelliview.com/go/osdn_nl ___ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
[uml-devel] Re: [uml-user] [POLL] Putting UML/2.4 into fixes-only mode
+1 For my purposes I need solid, stable code. I prefer a a 2.4 and 2.6 kernel that builds without too many config gotchas. And runs reliably. e.g. right now I am using the blaisorblade 2.6.9-bs patches and the pre-hostfs 2.4 code. That works well. I'm all for different UML trees/patches that try out new features and make major changes. And I will contribute to testing those if needed. But I would like to keep those patches/trees separate from the 'stable' one. It is your time, and you can spend it how you like (obviously). I'd be most happy if new work went into the 2.6 tree if that meant more would be done. That seems to be where all new distros are going (not 2.4). And (give or take a bug or two) most of my UML instances run really well on the 2.6 tree. If I had a really solid 2.6 kernel I don't think I'd even need the 2.4 one. So if you can save some backporting efforts, work on adding more 2.6 stability and new features (on the separate -mm type tree) that could be a win-win. Cheers, Peter Blaisorblade wrote: Jeff, I've seen the beginning of your work on back-porting all the patches from 2.6 to 2.4... It's a huge work, but what is more important, it could obviously hurt stability... So, I'd suggest to follow this policy to choose the work to merge: - reduce *a lot* what is going to be merged... no new features, no code cleanups (especially NOT the Makefiles cleanups)... - concentrate on stability... and on backing out the hostfs rewrite. --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IntelliVIEW -- Interactive Reporting Tool for open source databases. Create drag--drop reports. Save time by over 75%! Publish reports on the web. Export to DOC, XLS, RTF, etc. Download a FREE copy at http://www.intelliview.com/go/osdn_nl ___ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
[uml-devel] Re: [uml-user] [POLL] Putting UML/2.4 into fixes-only mode
I would like a 2.4 that is stable. with a working hostfs. (that i can run valgrind against - heh, not umls fault here.) Also, the uml web site needs to be authoritative. building the above should not require patching from additional sources announced on the list. That said, 2.4 and 2.6 are both 'stable' kernel branches that have had quite a bit of UML development in them. So, if it helps future maintaining of both 2.4 and 2.6, at least until 2.7 appears, then do what you need to do. please don't abandon 2.4 until 2.7 is well under way. Maybe you could break up the 2.4 patches into 'stable' 'testing' and 'experimental' ? db Blaisorblade wrote: Jeff, I've seen the beginning of your work on back-porting all the patches from 2.6 to 2.4... It's a huge work, but what is more important, it could obviously hurt stability... So, I'd suggest to follow this policy to choose the work to merge: - reduce *a lot* what is going to be merged... no new features, no code cleanups (especially NOT the Makefiles cleanups)... - concentrate on stability... and on backing out the hostfs rewrite. -- db signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
