On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:31:52PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-27 17:29]:
> > There's a few reports against 2.4 kernel that are fixed in 2.6 and
> > are unlikely to get in 2.4 every (Examples: #146956 or #130217).
> > How should we deal with them in the BTS?
>
> Is there any chance of those fixes being backported to 2.4 and how
> much work would it be? It seems that you guys have all given up on
> 2.4 completely, but I'd imagine that the majority of our users will
> still use 2.4 for a while.
The majority of our users will use what sarge provides as default.
Backporting the above changes is possible, but non-trivial, and it's
RFE's anyway, not bugs in the strict sense.
> This is really related to some other postings in this thread: are we
> ready to move to 2.6 by default?
Only looking from the upstream kernel POV:
alpha:
ok
i386:
ok
ia64:
ok
m68k:
mainline seems to work for atari and m68k with small patches
AFAICS. some subarchitectures seems to be lagging behind badly
(even worse than in 2.4)
mips:
upstream 2.6 works nicely on maybe subarches but badly or not
at all on some others.
parisc:
seems to be fine in general but IIRC some features are still
missing
ppc:
for non-embedded plattforms 2.6 is ok, embedded plattforms are
still catching up
sparc:
no SMP support on 2.6 yet, and AFAIK only sun4c/m works reliable
sparc64:
ok
x86_64:
ok, Andi Kleen said x86_64 in 2.4 is in deep maintaince mode
