SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Reporting that new kernel boots is not a feedback. I don't remember when it was the last time when kernel failed to boot.
You're right
But, when you are faced with a problem, the first thing you want to know is whether it affects 1% or 99% of users.
PS : I haven't seen any post from people who just said "Yeah, it boots!"
Every time I compile a new kernel, I'm able to test : ethernet, wifi, bluetooth, cifs, sshfs, nfs, etc ...
So, when I said "Running fine", means: with my hardware, my configuration and its particularities, everything is fine.
And this is undoubtedly the case for all those who post here
Distribution: Slackware64-current with "True Multilib" and KDE4Town.
Posts: 9,163
Original Poster
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeterna
......Reporting that new kernel boots is not a feedback. I don't remember when it was the last time when kernel failed to boot......
See post #3579, above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marav
............Every time I compile a new kernel, I'm able to test : ethernet, wifi, bluetooth, cifs, sshfs, nfs, etc ...
So, when I said "Running fine", means: with my hardware, my configuration and its particularities, everything is fine.
And this is undoubtedly the case for all those who post here
Agreed!
Last edited by cwizardone; 07-15-2021 at 09:05 PM.
so the plan for maintenance is to keep following the latest kernels as needed for security purposes
So, I also think that we are going to upgrade to every latest stable kernel, until a new LTS will be released
Code:
Sooner or later we will end up on an LTS kernel again
Thanks @garpu and @marav for the replies. As for @marav, I didn't read the ChangeLog closely enough to realize that's what was going on. My bad.
Given the reason that 5.10.x was abandoned in the first place (insufficient hardware support), it makes sense that the next LTS kernel will have support for all the hardware that Slackware users have. At least, that's the hope.
Last edited by 1337_powerslacker; 07-15-2021 at 09:28 PM.
Reason: Clarification
Distribution: VM Host: Slackware-current, VM Guests: Artix, Venom, antiX, Gentoo, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, OpenIndiana
Posts: 1,017
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by marav
You're right
But, when you are faced with a problem, the first thing you want to know is whether it affects 1% or 99% of users.
PS : I haven't seen any post from people who just said "Yeah, it boots!"
Every time I compile a new kernel, I'm able to test : ethernet, wifi, bluetooth, cifs, sshfs, nfs, etc ...
So, when I said "Running fine", means: with my hardware, my configuration and its particularities, everything is fine.
And this is undoubtedly the case for all those who post here
No report to this thread can be an exhaustive validation of all kernel features. Positive reports, even if only of successful build/booting, might give others confidence to try the newer kernels themselves. Take them for what they are.
Second day running 5.13.2 here on my laptop with no visible issues.
root:~/ # slackpkg info solid
PACKAGE NAME: solid-5.84.0-x86_64-1.txz
PACKAGE LOCATION: ./slackware64/kde
PACKAGE SIZE (compressed): 344 K
PACKAGE SIZE (uncompressed): 2160 K
PACKAGE DESCRIPTION:
solid: solid (Desktop hardware abstraction)
solid:
solid: Solid is a device integration framework. It provides a way of querying
solid: and interacting with hardware independently of the underlying
solid: operating system. It provides hardware discovery, power management,
solid: and network management features.
solid:
solid: Homepage: https://api.kde.org/frameworks/solid/html/
solid:
Package: solid-5.84.0-x86_64-1
Repository: slackware64
Path: ./slackware64/kde/solid-5.84.0-x86_64-1.txz
Url: https://matoda.pw/slackware/slackware64-current/slackware64/kde/solid-5.84.0-x86_64-1.txz
Code:
root:~/ # mount | grep nfs
192.168.111.22:/mnt/zdoc on /mnt/doc type nfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,vers=3,rsize=131072,wsize=131072,namlen=255,hard,nolock,proto=tcp,timeo=600,retrans=2,sec=sys,mountaddr=192.168.111.22,mountvers=3,mountport=682,mountproto=udp,local_lock=all,addr=192.168.111.22,user,_netdev)
PS: I'm able to mount the same share folder with cifs & sshfs, that's why I can test these 3 network filesystems after each kernel release
Quote:
in other words as I said: you just state that kernel boots fine.
And if you keep saying that if I don't have a problem it's because I only "boot" the kernel. Let me tell you that you are wrong
Last edited by marav; 07-16-2021 at 10:43 AM.
Reason: add ps:
root:~/ # slackpkg info solid
PACKAGE NAME: solid-5.84.0-x86_64-1.txz
PACKAGE LOCATION: ./slackware64/kde
PACKAGE SIZE (compressed): 344 K
PACKAGE SIZE (uncompressed): 2160 K
PACKAGE DESCRIPTION:
solid: solid (Desktop hardware abstraction)
solid:
solid: Solid is a device integration framework. It provides a way of querying
solid: and interacting with hardware independently of the underlying
solid: operating system. It provides hardware discovery, power management,
solid: and network management features.
solid:
solid: Homepage: https://api.kde.org/frameworks/solid/html/
solid:
Package: solid-5.84.0-x86_64-1
Repository: slackware64
Path: ./slackware64/kde/solid-5.84.0-x86_64-1.txz
Url: https://matoda.pw/slackware/slackware64-current/slackware64/kde/solid-5.84.0-x86_64-1.txz
Code:
root:~/ # mount | grep nfs
192.168.111.22:/mnt/zdoc on /mnt/doc type nfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,vers=3,rsize=131072,wsize=131072,namlen=255,hard,nolock,proto=tcp,timeo=600,retrans=2,sec=sys,mountaddr=192.168.111.22,mountvers=3,mountport=682,mountproto=udp,local_lock=all,addr=192.168.111.22,user,_netdev)
PS: I'm able to mount the same share folder with cifs & sshfs, that's why I can test these 3 network filesystems after each kernel release
this:
Quote:
mount.nfs: requested NFS version or transport protocol is not supported
has nothing to do with solid or kde
but broken nfs support in 5.13.0 kernel
:
according to greg k-h
unless you have better information than he..
you did not test nfs then so whatever you test now is great of course. More testers than better. Problem was with 5.13.0, you reported no issues https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...ml#post6261938
..
Cut from his monthly moneys for this outrageous unprofessional testing! What a shame!
Honestly, I believe that IF you are unsatisfied by this amateurish testing made by amateurs, you should feel free to hire a team of professionals to do the job.
As you know well, Tester is a well respected and well payed profession. Many times, they are payed even better than the programmers.
Last edited by LuckyCyborg; 07-16-2021 at 12:37 PM.
Thanks @garpu and @marav for the replies. As for @marav, I didn't read the ChangeLog closely enough to realize that's what was going on. My bad.
Given the reason that 5.10.x was abandoned in the first place (insufficient hardware support), it makes sense that the next LTS kernel will have support for all the hardware that Slackware users have. At least, that's the hope.
AND, what makes you to believe that the next Industrial Kernel will be (even somehow) better than the current one for the home users?
After all, they aren't made for desktops but of servers and industry - I see no reason to believe that another one will be better.
I bet that eventually it will be even worst than the current one.
Last edited by LuckyCyborg; 07-16-2021 at 11:43 AM.
so to be precise and answer your question :
according to greg k-h
unless you have better information than he..
you did not test nfs then so whatever you test now is great of course. More testers than better. Problem was with 5.13.0, you reported no issues https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...ml#post6261938
..
After all, they aren't made for desktops but of servers and industry - I see no reason to believe that another one will be better.
What?!? Kernels that become LTS releases aren't made any different than every other kernel release. However, they are maintained for longevity, which tends to be more common in server and embedded roles. The only difference in a non-LTS vs an LTS kernel is the length that they are maintained. There isn't some code switch that says LTS are for servers.
Have you never been bit by a new kernel? Do you not understand why some would not want to gamble with being bit with a new kernel every 2-3 months? Yes, patches for LTS releases can introduce bugs, but it's less likely than a bug being introduced in a completely new kernel release.
The trouble is, they backport things to LTS kernels anyway and they may not always be appropriate. For one recent example, I went back to Linux 5.12.14 on my Slackware box, because a change to drivers/scsi/sr.c (introducing a new status condition check that sends an eject request if true) was backported from 5.13. It was causing my craptastic Asus DVD writer's tray to pop open on a boot up from powered off state (not on a warm boot). I eventually moved on to 5.13 on my other boxes, so I decided to just revert that change and use 5.13.
The trouble is, they backport things to LTS kernels anyway and they may not always be appropriate. For one recent example, I went back to Linux 5.12.14 on my Slackware box, because a change to drivers/scsi/sr.c (introducing a new status condition check that sends an eject request if true) was backported from 5.13. It was causing my craptastic Asus DVD writer's tray to pop open on a boot up from powered off state (not on a warm boot). I eventually moved on to 5.13 on my other boxes, so I decided to just revert that change and use 5.13.
Kernel devs aren't perfect, but you're generally less likely to run into problems with point releases vs new versions. LTS receive point releases much longer than non-LTS kernels, so you're going to have a longer time of updates with point releases, meaning you're less likely to run into bugs than sticking with the latest stable.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
