Kernel Recipes 2015: The stable Linux Kernel Tree - 10 years of insanity
1 like1,614 views
The document discusses the history and challenges of maintaining the stable Linux kernel tree over 10 years, detailing the progression of kernel versions and the complexities involved in patching. It highlights the roles of various contributors and the criteria for 'longterm kernels'. Key points include the rigorous rules for submitting patches to ensure stability and the daunting task of managing community expectations.
Kernel Recipes 2015: The stable Linux Kernel Tree - 10 years of insanity
- 1. The Stable Linux Kernel Tree 10 years of insanity Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org github.com/gregkh/stable-presentation
- 3. Linux 2.0.0
- 4. 4 months later: Linux 2.1.0
- 5. Even number stable Odd number development Linux branches
- 6. 848 days and 141 releases later...
- 7. Linux 2.2.0
- 8. 4 months later: Linux 2.3.0
- 9. 604 days and 58 releases later...
- 10. Linux 2.4.0
- 11. 10 months later: Linux 2.5.0
- 12. 1057 days and 86 releases later...
- 13. Linux 2.6.0
- 15. New release every 2 ½ months
- 16. From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> Subject: Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering Date: 2005-03-03 16:23:39 UTC I'll tell you what the problem is: I don't think you'll find anybody to do the parallel "only trivial patches" tree. They'll go crazy in a couple of weeks. Why? Because it's a _damn_ hard problem. Where do you draw the line? What's an acceptable patch? And if you get it wrong, people will complain _very_ loudly, since by now you've "promised" them a kernel that is better than the mainline. In other words: there's almost zero glory, there are no interesting problems, and there will absolutely be people who claim that you're a dick-head and worse, probably on a weekly basis. Anybody?
- 17. From: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> Subject: Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering Date: 2005-03-03 16:43:53 GMT > Anybody? Well, I'm one person who has said that this would be a very tough problem to solve. And hey, I like tough problems, so I'll volunteer to start this. If I burn out, I'll take the responsibility of finding someone else to take it over.
- 18. From: Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org> Subject: Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering Date: 2005-03-03 16:55:33 GMT > Anybody? Andres Salomon (-as patches) and I have been talking about that at least regarding security fixes. It's worth trying in a more complete and formalized way. Guess I can be branded a sucker :)
- 20. “Longterm kernels” One picked per year Maintained for two years 3.10 3.14 4.1 2.6.20 to 2.6.24-rc
- 22. stable_kernel_rules.txt 2.6.20 to 2.6.24-rc obviously correct and tested not bigger than 100 lines must fix only one thing must fix a real bug must fix a real problem new device ids and quirks must be in Linus's tree already
- 23. stable_kernel_rules.txt 2.6.20 to 2.6.24-rc "Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>" to the Signed-off-by: area of the patch or send git id to stable@vger.kernel.org
- 24. Review cycle 2.6.20 to 2.6.24-rc Patches are sent to maintainers and authors 48-72 hour review