[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Stable Linux-Vserver patch plans



Hi,

I wanted to start a discussion about the plans for the stable kernel
in the next point release, specifically where it relates to the
Linux-Vserver patch-set.
 
As we all know, the 2.6.26 kernel is the version that Lenny ended up
with and the Linux-Vserver patch that was under development (and was
still highly experimental and not complete) at that time was *not*
released for that kernel, and so the version of the patch that Debian
used was a backport of a snapshot of where things were at the latest
point. 

It was decided by the Linux-Vserver project to do long-term maintenance
of the 2.6.27 patches, to coincide with the long-term maintenance of
mainline 2.6.27. The reasons why this situation arose was related to the
heavy virtualization changes in upstream kernel, causing major patch
changes.

As a result of this unfortunate timing situation, the remains in the
Lenny kernel some significant issues that continually come up in
upstream support channels, as well as in the Debian BTS. The main
problem is the wrong filesystem attributes being used which cause major
grief for people switching to or from that kernel. However there are a
number of other issues that are also significant:

 - the missing TB scheduler
 - the PID 1 parent being wrong (initpid)
 - netnamespace (not a big deal, as it is broken in 2.6.26 mainline
   anyway, so it cannot really be used) 
 - signalling fix (delta-sigkill-fix01.diff)
 - memory info (delta-cached-fix01.diff)

Most of these issues could be solved by backporting the Linux-Vserver
patches to resolve them to 2.6.26, leaving only the mainline 2.6.26
issues.

So I am writing to ask what we can do to fix these issues, if the issues
were backported, could we get them included in a point release?  Or are
there other plans that would resolve these problems? With a diff against
mainline, this could be sorted out, but I don't know if such work would
be used?

Thanks,
micah




Reply to: