[Devel] patch against 2.6.8.1 (stable)

[Kir Kolyshkin]

Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>> 3. Devel branch will not be declared stable for at least a few more
>> months -- just because the kernel it is based on is quite new. New stuff
>> contains bugs. Old stuff can have those bugs fixed. What we do in our
>> 'stable' series is we backport all the security fixes from the newer
>> kernels, we also backport essential/relevant bug fixes and some driver
>> updates as well.
>>     
>
> So, can I assume, the "stable" patch against an quite old kernel 
> brings the fixes of newer (vanilla) kernels by itself ?
>   
As you can see from our changelogs, we have backported a lot of 
bugfixing stuff from newer kernels, and we are keeping an eye on that.
> I like to keep my kernels as new as possible
What is your intention? I. e. why you like to keep your kernels as new 
as possible?
> , therefore I did some
> experiments on porting the "stable" patch to newer versions.
>   
The porting itself can bring in different sorts of bugs, so after 
porting the result can not be considered "stable" anymore.
>> 4. In fact, both stable and devel branches are based on the roughly 
>> same code (the only difference is new functionality in devel, like veth
>> device and checkpointing). 
>>     
>
> Yeah, these new features may have bugs, and this is the reason for
> differentiating between "stable" and "devel" branches :)
>
> I would be happier if I could choose between an these two branches 
> but both against an new kernel.
>   
As I tried to explain above, an OpenVZ kernel based on a new mainstream 
Linux kernel (such as 2.6.16) can not be considered stable just because 
the new mainstream kernel is not stable enough by itself.
>> So, there are several bug sources/reasons:
>>  - mainstream kernel bugs;
>>     
>
> hmm, aren't they a job for kernel folks ? or maybe some separate
> kernel QM project ? (many distros are maintaining their own fixes
> for the kernel and also dozens of other packages - perhaps try
> to concentrate these works in one QM project ?)
>   
So that is what we do as well, in our stable kernel series. Ours 2.6.8 
is not just 2.6.8 + openvz patchet; rather it is 2.6.8 + tons of fixes + 
driver updates + openvz patchset.
>> 5. Can you tell us what is your final intention, i.e. what do you need?
>> We can probably help...
>>     
>
> As said above: I like to have most recent kernels, as on all my
> other machines, since I feel its the greatest chance for the best
> kernel. Maybe I've been wrong all these years.
>   
newer kernel != better kernel
newest kernel != best kernel

Still, if you want new kernel, I suggest you try our devel kernel. It is 
fairly stable; and if it will be not stable enough for you, we will fix it.