From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michael Tremer <michael.tremer@ipfire.org>
To: development@lists.ipfire.org
Subject: Re: Should we go for Linux 5.15.64 for Core Update 170?
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2022 11:20:35 +0100
Message-ID: <7207D207-9A1D-439B-B186-6E1D8A30093C@ipfire.org>
In-Reply-To: <1abfb79e-e120-8866-eb36-d064bdbada1b@ipfire.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8724260908638732215=="
List-Id: <development.lists.ipfire.org>

--===============8724260908638732215==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,

> On 5 Sep 2022, at 11:53, Adolf Belka <adolf.belka(a)ipfire.org> wrote:
>=20
> Hi All,
>=20
> On 05/09/2022 11:59, Michael Tremer wrote:
>> Hello,
>>=20
>>> On 2 Sep 2022, at 17:45, Peter M=C3=BCller <peter.mueller(a)ipfire.org> w=
rote:
>>>=20
>>> Hello development folks,
>>>=20
>>> 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 =
tcp/netfilter subsystems.
>> The kernel log always reads a bit scary. And yes, if in doubt, I would pre=
fer to rather ship one kernel too many.
>>=20
>> However, this massively breaks our development model and makes the entire =
stabilisation phase a lot harder - and we are already struggling with that.
>>=20
>> Now, .65 is already out as well. I wouldn=E2=80=99t object to update to th=
is, but I am very short on time this week and really would like to see the up=
date going out soon.
> We could release CU170 with its current kernel and do a follow-up CU171 rel=
ease with just the new kernel. That way we get CU170 out quickly and can fair=
ly quickly and with simple testing get the updated kernel with its network pa=
tches fixed.
>=20
> I presume that the networking bugs found with 5.15.59 are also present with=
 the kernel that is in CU169 so the impact of issuing CU170 with that kernel =
is not worse than for the existing CU169.

Indeed. And I am not aware of any reports from users that there are any bugs =
they are running into.

-Michael

>=20
> Regards,
> Adolf.
>>> Generally, I am not a fan of updating the kernel in Core Updates while th=
ey are already in
>>> testing (unless something is badly broken, of course), since this is an u=
phill battle, and in
>>> the past has delayed releases quite notably.
>> Agreed.
>>=20
>>> Therefore, I would be grateful for input, since I am not too sure how to =
judge 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.
>>=20
>> -Michael
>>=20
>>> Thanks in advance, and best regards,
>>> Peter M=C3=BCller
>=20
> --=20
> Sent from my laptop


--===============8724260908638732215==--