From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adolf Belka To: development@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: Should we go for Linux 5.15.64 for Core Update 170? Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2022 12:53:57 +0200 Message-ID: <1abfb79e-e120-8866-eb36-d064bdbada1b@ipfire.org> In-Reply-To: <8000BCF6-4215-4D1F-A9D1-F63AC48C036B@ipfire.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4983131757242302751==" List-Id: --===============4983131757242302751== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi All, On 05/09/2022 11:59, Michael Tremer wrote: > Hello, > >> On 2 Sep 2022, at 17:45, Peter M=C3=BCller wr= ote: >> >> Hello development folks, >> >> earlier today, I came across https://cdn.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v5.x/= ChangeLog-5.15.64, in >> which several commits caught my attention, particularly all those in the t= cp/netfilter subsystems. > The kernel log always reads a bit scary. And yes, if in doubt, I would pref= er to rather ship one kernel too many. > > However, this massively breaks our development model and makes the entire s= tabilisation phase a lot harder - and we are already struggling with that. > > Now, .65 is already out as well. I wouldn=E2=80=99t object to update to thi= s, but I am very short on time this week and really would like to see the upd= ate going out soon. We could release CU170 with its current kernel and do a follow-up CU171=20 release with just the new kernel. That way we get CU170 out quickly and=20 can fairly quickly and with simple testing get the updated kernel with=20 its network patches fixed. I presume that the networking bugs found with 5.15.59 are also present=20 with the kernel that is in CU169 so the impact of issuing CU170 with=20 that kernel is not worse than for the existing CU169. Regards, Adolf. >> Generally, I am not a fan of updating the kernel in Core Updates while the= y are already in >> testing (unless something is badly broken, of course), since this is an up= hill battle, and in >> the past has delayed releases quite notably. > Agreed. > >> Therefore, I would be grateful for input, since I am not too sure how to j= udge the severity of >> these aforementioned kernel commits. Is this something we should bring to = our users sooner rather >> than later? Does anything strike you as "hey, we have dealt with this bug = for ages, and it is >> finally resolved upstream"? > I didn=E2=80=99t spot anything that would be incredibly scary, but I agree = that there is an unusually high amount of networking patches in this release. > > -Michael > >> Thanks in advance, and best regards, >> Peter M=C3=BCller --=20 Sent from my laptop --===============4983131757242302751==--