Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Big Linux 2.6.35 Kernel Problem Is Fixed

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Here's a tip Michael, try running the PTS on older kernels (I'm talking 2.6.0, 2.6.5, etc..) and see if there are any regressions that came unnoticed.
    Would also be an interesting read to see how the kernel has matured, whether they are adding stuff at the cost of performance or the performance keeps improving too(or at least not degrading as much).

    Comment


    • #12
      I'm getting sick of people complaining about Michael's work.
      They really don't realize how is work somehow contributes to the Linux world.

      I'm sure though that the Linux Kernel developers appreciate his work, and that's the only thing that matters.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by bulletxt View Post
        I'm getting sick of people complaining about Michael's work.
        They really don't realize how is work somehow contributes to the Linux world.

        I'm sure though that the Linux Kernel developers appreciate his work, and that's the only thing that matters.
        Amen. Michael's work is a great service to the kernel devs as it highlights issues that negatively impact the kernel long before it goes live

        Comment


        • #14
          Just Don't Claim the Sky Is Falling

          Originally posted by DeepDayze View Post
          Amen. Michael's work is a great service to the kernel devs as it highlights issues that negatively impact the kernel long before it goes live
          Michael's work is fine. Highlighting issues that negatively impact the kernel before it goes live is great. Claiming that the sky is falling when such issues pop up in a pre-release seems a bit silly. Issues like this at alpha/beta stages are par for the course. Point them out in a matter of fact manner and nobody will call you out for it; the issues will just get fixed.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by diegocg View Post
            "To us at least, it still is a real problem that such a regression can be introduced in the mainline kernel and live there for a number of days without being addressed -- especially when it negatively affects the operating system's performance in so many different areas."

            Well, I strongly disagree. It's not a "problem" that such regressions can be introduced. Of course, it's a bug that must be solved, but there is nothing strange or atypical with finding such bugs in a pre-rc1 git snapshot. That's why -rcx releases exist. That's why there are three months of kernel development. To find such bugs. So there is nothing "unexpected" here, a bug was found (which, BTW, is far from being a critical bug), and it was fixed. Big deal.

            In fact, if you _really_ follow the kernel development (which phoronix editors don't seem to do), there are always several reverts of commits that introduce bugs that are detected in -rc releases. If you need a tree that merges bug fixes immediately then the Linus tree is not for you, because Linus may take a week off to go to some conference or because of holidays or things like that. It's also not strange that an important fix may get delayed just because people is discussing how it must be fixed. At this stage, you are expected to report bugs, test and apply the corresponding bugfix patches yourself.

            In other words. Can Phoronix stop doing ridiculous claims the next time? You _will_ find performance regressions and bugs in 2.6.26-pre-rc1 if you search them, and in 2.6.27-pre-rc1, and in 2.6.28-pre-rc1. It's a good thing if you want to become a kernel tester, but they aren't interesting news.
            to make matter worse, Phoronix didn't care to report the bug. It was fixed because OTHER people found and reported it. Really, Phoronix failed hard and blames devs for a bug that didn't even survived -rc1. That is low.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by DeepDayze View Post
              Amen. Michael's work is a great service to the kernel devs as it highlights issues that negatively impact the kernel long before it goes live
              so where is the email from Michael to lkml reporting that bug? Oh wait! It was never sent!

              The 'issue' was found independently by several people. But the only one who did nothing about it but writing an acerbic article was Michael. There is no service in doing so. Quite the opposite. Acting like this hurts linux development.

              Next time report bugs first, then write article. Then there might be any worth in phoronix testing.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by bulletxt View Post
                I'm getting sick of people complaining about Michael's work.
                They really don't realize how is work somehow contributes to the Linux world.

                I'm sure though that the Linux Kernel developers appreciate his work, and that's the only thing that matters.
                no, they don't appreciate 'his work'.

                http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127535359014939&w=2

                Well thats kinda obvious, its "journalism" in the days of google
                adwords. They make revenue by making people click on their website,
                they don't make money being useful or interacting with others.
                Phoronix in all the years I've been dealing with them as the only
                place doing any reporting on graphics, have never once confirmed a
                source, asked for information directly or anything you'd expect from
                real journalists, again because that doesn't drive page hits, whereas
                sensationalist useless headlines are the main point of the site.

                Dave.


                And David Airlie's work has been constantly mentioned here.

                If you don't report the bugs you see, all you do is worthless for kernel devs. And if you write inflammatory articles instead, you are hurting development actively.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by energyman View Post
                  no, they don't appreciate 'his work'.

                  http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127535359014939&w=2

                  Well thats kinda obvious, its "journalism" in the days of google
                  adwords. They make revenue by making people click on their website,
                  they don't make money being useful or interacting with others.
                  Phoronix in all the years I've been dealing with them as the only
                  place doing any reporting on graphics, have never once confirmed a
                  source, asked for information directly or anything you'd expect from
                  real journalists, again because that doesn't drive page hits, whereas
                  sensationalist useless headlines are the main point of the site.

                  Dave.


                  And David Airlie's work has been constantly mentioned here.

                  If you don't report the bugs you see, all you do is worthless for kernel devs. And if you write inflammatory articles instead, you are hurting development actively.
                  It is not Michael's job to report bugs. His job is to run this site.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by zoomblab View Post
                    It is not Michael's job to report bugs. His job is to run this site.
                    I do like there being some automated tests. That's great, it's nice, it could be very useful.
                    But the article was misleading at best, and closer to trouble making and trolling than that. The reasons why have already been thoroughly discussed. And if the phoronix test suite is going to be useful to kernel development and catching bugs in general (like phoronix keeps harping on about) then they've got to show how useful it can be - and that involves reporting bugs.
                    Credit where credit is due (great work on the test suite and all), but criticism where it's due as well.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by mirv View Post
                      I do like there being some automated tests. That's great, it's nice, it could be very useful.
                      But the article was misleading at best, and closer to trouble making and trolling than that. The reasons why have already been thoroughly discussed. And if the phoronix test suite is going to be useful to kernel development and catching bugs in general (like phoronix keeps harping on about) then they've got to show how useful it can be - and that involves reporting bugs.
                      Credit where credit is due (great work on the test suite and all), but criticism where it's due as well.
                      ++

                      Oh and BTW stop being PUSSIES and take it like a man - I'm not trying (or in any way) am directly offending Michael or anyone of you

                      take/see constructive criticism as a gift and opportunity to improve instead of an opportunity to whine and taking offense in statements where there is no insult

                      how goes the saying: with great power comes great responsibility ?

                      and in this context responsibility means reporting it to the devs

                      if you're not willing to post a lengthy article on lkml or any other well-known group just post a short message & link to this article and that should be enough

                      why on earth is anyone in the F/OSS world so quickly hurt in their "pride" ?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X