[arch-general] About linux 4.8 and 4.9...
Sorry to reply to Phil Wyet this way. I enabled digest mode for arch-general. You won't see soon linux 4.9.x in core because it is kinda rotten with some Intel CPUs. You cannot get it to boot on some intel CPUs like an old T4200 or younger ones. See these bugs reports : https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/52246 https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/52271 https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/52243 https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/52238 Two bugs - and maybe more - are opened on kernel bug tracker : https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192111 https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=191801 Looks like linux 4.9 won't be a LTS version at all... I own three computers. Because of intel CPU regression in 4.9.xx, both my asus eeePC and my Toshiba Laptop are booting on linux 4.4.xx LTS. Only my main desktop computer which is using an Athlon X2-215 is booting on linux 4.9.x. -- Frederic Bezies fredbezies@gmail.com
On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 12:06 +0100, fredbezies via arch-general wrote:
Sorry to reply to Phil Wyet this way. I enabled digest mode for arch- general.
You won't see soon linux 4.9.x in core because it is kinda rotten with some Intel CPUs.
You cannot get it to boot on some intel CPUs like an old T4200 or younger ones.
See these bugs reports :
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/52246 https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/52271 https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/52243 https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/52238
Two bugs - and maybe more - are opened on kernel bug tracker :
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192111 https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=191801
Looks like linux 4.9 won't be a LTS version at all...
I own three computers. Because of intel CPU regression in 4.9.xx, both my asus eeePC and my Toshiba Laptop are booting on linux 4.4.xx LTS.
Only my main desktop computer which is using an Athlon X2-215 is booting on linux 4.9.x.
Hi, Thanks for the info and bug links. I have my own issue with 4.9 on a particular machine running an Intel Celeron G550 and has Radeon 7700 graphics. I happily ran kernel 4.8.13 with xorg-server, ati driver (radeon) and mesa from testing. The fun came when I added kernel 4.9.1 and during use I got fullscreen RGB noise and an underlay square cursor representation. Only recovery from that was reset button. Does this mean we will see 4.8.16 being built and pushed out to users? Regards Phil -- Play the game, for the games sake. OS of choice: Arch / Antergos GitHub: https://github.com/philwyettreb Intsant Messaging (XMPP): philwyettreb@chatme.im
Le 09/01/2017 à 12:24, Phil Wyett via arch-general a écrit :
On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 12:06 +0100, fredbezies via arch-general wrote:
Sorry to reply to Phil Wyet this way. I enabled digest mode for arch- general.
You won't see soon linux 4.9.x in core because it is kinda rotten with some Intel CPUs.
You cannot get it to boot on some intel CPUs like an old T4200 or younger ones.
See these bugs reports :
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/52246 https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/52271 https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/52243 https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/52238
In addition to my previous comment on Arch Policy regarding the kernel, I should have added: search for bug reports with linux or the next version in the title. If you use the “Bug reports” button on https://www.archlinux.org/packages/testing/x86_64/linux, be sure to switch “Category” to “All Categories” in the search interface, or you’ll missed most of them… just like I did when I checked before posting my previous mail to this thread… Thanks @fredbezies for pointing those!
Two bugs - and maybe more - are opened on kernel bug tracker :
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192111 https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=191801
Looks like linux 4.9 won't be a LTS version at all...
Isn’t 4.10 supposed to be the next LTS rather than 4.9?
I own three computers. Because of intel CPU regression in 4.9.xx, both my asus eeePC and my Toshiba Laptop are booting on linux 4.4.xx LTS.
Only my main desktop computer which is using an Athlon X2-215 is booting on linux 4.9.x.
Hi,
Thanks for the info and bug links.
I have my own issue with 4.9 on a particular machine running an Intel Celeron G550 and has Radeon 7700 graphics. I happily ran kernel 4.8.13 with xorg-server, ati driver (radeon) and mesa from testing. The fun came when I added kernel 4.9.1 and during use I got fullscreen RGB noise and an underlay square cursor representation. Only recovery from that was reset button.
Does this mean we will see 4.8.16 being built and pushed out to users?
This could indeed be done (it’s even 4.8.17 as of today) if 4.9.2 still doesn’t fix those issues (it has been discussed before that Arch should continue to package updates to the kernel if the new one isn’t ready for consumption), but that’s up to @tpowa. ;) Cheers, Bruno
On 01/09/2017 02:07 PM, Bruno Pagani via arch-general wrote:
Does this mean we will see 4.8.16 being built and pushed out to users?
This could indeed be done (it’s even 4.8.17 as of today) if 4.9.2 still doesn’t fix those issues (it has been discussed before that Arch should continue to package updates to the kernel if the new one isn’t ready for consumption), but that’s up to @tpowa. ;)
Well, the kernel still needs to go through [testing] (which is where we are currently testing 4.9). So maybe that would happen if tpowa gives up on 4.9 for now altogether. I'm a bit confused as to why the svntogit logs claim 4.9.2 was pushed to testing, but the repos still show 4.9.1 -- Eli Schwartz
Le 09/01/2017 à 20:18, Eli Schwartz via arch-general a écrit :
On 01/09/2017 02:07 PM, Bruno Pagani via arch-general wrote:
Does this mean we will see 4.8.16 being built and pushed out to users? This could indeed be done (it’s even 4.8.17 as of today) if 4.9.2 still doesn’t fix those issues (it has been discussed before that Arch should continue to package updates to the kernel if the new one isn’t ready for consumption), but that’s up to @tpowa. ;) Well, the kernel still needs to go through [testing] (which is where we are currently testing 4.9). So maybe that would happen if tpowa gives up on 4.9 for now altogether.
Yes, that’s why I’ve said it was up to @tpowa. ;)
I'm a bit confused as to why the svntogit logs claim 4.9.2 was pushed to testing, but the repos still show 4.9.1
Well, I’ve often seen a bit of discrepancy between svntogit logs and the repos. Like a package to be updated on my system, but when I go to see what was changed, nothing… I admit not being and expert in archweb internals, so whether that is kind of expected or not, but I seem to remember there was a discussion about this one day on a ML even if can’t find that again right now. Bruno
FYI, 4.8 has been EOL'd, leaving 4.4-lts, 4.1-lts as options for arch "default" kernel until 4.10 is released if we assume that there's a critical fix in the stable patch queue. My criticism of the stable patch queue is that they mix fixes with actual feature patches, making it more risky and not upholding a important fixes only policy.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Carsten Mattner via arch-general < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
FYI, 4.8 has been EOL'd, leaving 4.4-lts, 4.1-lts as options for arch "default" kernel until 4.10 is released if we assume that there's a critical fix in the stable patch queue.
My criticism of the stable patch queue is that they mix fixes with actual feature patches, making it more risky and not upholding a important fixes only policy.
Looks like there are some patches to try and are being tested for kernel 4.9 - see https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=191121 -- mike c
On Tue, 2017-01-10 at 16:55 +0000, Mike Cloaked via arch-general wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Carsten Mattner via arch-general < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
...
Looks like there are some patches to try and are being tested for kernel 4.9 - see https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=191121
For me this is an EFI issue introduced in 4.9-rc1 - as described in https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=191801 https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=191121 the EFI patch applied to 4.10-rc3 is now bootable again. I need to test 4.9.2 as well but am pretty sure this will work too. I will note that not everyone having issues is using efi - so there could well be more than one issue involved here. regards, -- Gene lists@sapience.com
On 01/10/2017 08:53 AM, Carsten Mattner via arch-general wrote:
My criticism of the stable patch queue is that they mix fixes with actual feature patches, making it more risky and not upholding a important fixes only policy.
That would depend on whether you understand "stable" to be "LTS" or "let's not just pile on all the experimental stuff that may break everything". I am pretty sure there is already, in fact, an LTS kernel. You even mentioned it yourself. -- Eli Schwartz
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
On 01/10/2017 08:53 AM, Carsten Mattner via arch-general wrote:
My criticism of the stable patch queue is that they mix fixes with actual feature patches, making it more risky and not upholding a important fixes only policy.
That would depend on whether you understand "stable" to be "LTS" or "let's not just pile on all the experimental stuff that may break everything".
Since drivers are bundled in the kernel tree, we regularly run into many driver regressions and that's my primary objection to the missing quality assurance there. The community is doing an outstanding amount of testing already but the ranger of supported hardware is not covered by the testers and constant churn of code because it's part of a moving amalgamation in linux.git causes more issues than we would have with drivers targering a kernel ABI. One thing it would help make abundantly clear is when a driver maintainer stops supporting an old driver version. Now it's russian roulette for hardware to break when updating from one stable to the next supported stable kernel. Like it happened with 4.2 in DRM or the 4.9 boot problems which seem to be UEFI-exclusive.
I am pretty sure there is already, in fact, an LTS kernel. You even mentioned it yourself.
There are multiple LTS branches with one LTS being Greg's tree.
participants (7)
-
Bruno Pagani
-
Carsten Mattner
-
Eli Schwartz
-
fredbezies
-
Genes Lists
-
Mike Cloaked
-
Phil Wyett