Ubuntu 10.04 May Backport More Kernel DRM

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Ubuntu 10.04 May Backport More Kernel DRM

The decision to stick with the Linux 2.6.32 kernel rather than the soon to be released Linux 2.6.33 kernel for Ubuntu 10.04 LTS that will be released in April is leading to a few more headaches for those involved with packing X.Org and the graphics components for the Lucid Lynx release. Developers have already had to back-port the Nouveau DRM that went mainline during the Linux 2.6.33 cycle in order to gain kernel mode-setting support for NVIDIA hardware in Ubuntu 10.04 LTS, but now it looks like they may end up back-porting even more of this Direct Rendering Manager (DRM) code for improved graphics support atop the Linux 2.6.32 kernel. Bryce Harrington and others within Canonical and the Ubuntu development community have been discussing what to do about the kernel-side of the Linux graphics stack for this next Ubuntu release. For bugs that have arose within Ubuntu 10.04 already that pertain to the graphics drivers, the upstream developers are frequently telling the Ubuntu developers that the issues are already fixed in the Linux 2.6.33 kernel so to just use that instead...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=Nzk5Nw

[Raine]

They've forgot a 4th option:

Just make kernel 2.6.33 default on Ubuntu 10.4 (that decision should had happened long time ago)

Now Ubuntu will be 2.6.32 without some cool features e performance improvements that made their way into 2.6.33

[d2kx]

Their kernel gives me graphical corruption with KDE 4.4 (Kubuntu Lucid). When I install Linux 2.6.33, the problems go away. That is all.

[monraaf]

+ 1

I downloaded a Kubuntu daily live CD yesterday, it just booted into a black screen on my ATI hardware with kms. Seriously this cherry picking stuff seems like a recipe for disaster to me. Just go for 2.6.33

[thefirstm]

I agree. They should just go with 2.6.33.

[waucka]

The rationale for sticking with 2.6.32 is that it should be more stable than 2.6.33, and third parties (like AMD and NVIDIA) have more time to get their closed-source drivers sorted out. I doubt they will switch to 2.6.33 so late in the game, but it's not entirely out of the question.

Personally, I would like to see them switch to 2.6.33 and tell AMD and NVIDIA to just deal with it.

[Veerappan]

I agree. They should just go with 2.6.33.

Agreed. Backporting the DRM for pretty much every current graphics architecture is going to have tons of support headaches. It'd simplify things quite a bit if they'd have chosen 2.6.33. I can understand being nervous about using a new kernel for an LTS release, but in the long term, I think it'd be a better option. Keep in mind, they may have other reasons to not go with 2.6.33 which overrule the graphics issue (which I'm not aware of).

As of now, the biggest hurdle I can think of would probably just be getting adequate testing time in before 10.04 is out (assuming they were willing to change).

[Hephasteus]

The rationale for sticking with 2.6.32 is that it should be more stable than 2.6.33, and third parties (like AMD and NVIDIA) have more time to get their closed-source drivers sorted out. I doubt they will switch to 2.6.33 so late in the game, but it's not entirely out of the question.

Personally, I would like to see them switch to 2.6.33 and tell AMD and NVIDIA to just deal with it.

Ya it's kind of setting up your long term release 3 miles out in the ocean instead of getting all the way to the island where you can build fire and forage food.

[thefirstm]

The rationale for sticking with 2.6.32 is that it should be more stable than 2.6.33, and third parties (like AMD and NVIDIA) have more time to get their closed-source drivers sorted out. I doubt they will switch to 2.6.33 so late in the game, but it's not entirely out of the question.

Personally, I would like to see them switch to 2.6.33 and tell AMD and NVIDIA to just deal with it.

NVIDIA has already added support for 2.6.33 to the latest 195.xx.xx beta.

[gsacks]

Agree with all the other posts. I can't believe that they didn't go with 2.6.33 in the very first place. Seems like Canonical has taken their eyes off the ball lately. 8.04 was great. 8.10 was buggy at release (so I hear. I never used it). 9.04 was generally solid. 9.10 - buggy again. Looks like they are setting themselves up for trouble with 10.04 LTS. And here I thought that the .04 releases were the good ones. Kind of like even numbered Star Trek movies.