Discussion:
About linux 4.8 and 4.9...
(too old to reply)
fredbezies via arch-general
2017-01-09 11:06:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Sorry to reply to Phil Wyet this way. I enabled digest mode for arch-general.

You won't see soon linux 4.9.x in core because it is kinda rotten with
some Intel CPUs.

You cannot get it to boot on some intel CPUs like an old T4200 or younger ones.

See these bugs reports :

https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/52246
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/52271
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/52243
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/52238

Two bugs - and maybe more - are opened on kernel bug tracker :

https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192111
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=191801

Looks like linux 4.9 won't be a LTS version at all...

I own three computers. Because of intel CPU regression in 4.9.xx, both
my asus eeePC and my Toshiba Laptop are booting on linux 4.4.xx LTS.

Only my main desktop computer which is using an Athlon X2-215 is
booting on linux 4.9.x.
--
Frederic Bezies
***@gmail.com
Phil Wyett via arch-general
2017-01-09 11:24:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by fredbezies via arch-general
Sorry to reply to Phil Wyet this way. I enabled digest mode for arch-
general.
You won't see soon linux 4.9.x in core because it is kinda rotten with
some Intel CPUs.
You cannot get it to boot on some intel CPUs like an old T4200 or younger ones.
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/52246
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/52271
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/52243
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/52238
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192111
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=191801
Looks like linux 4.9 won't be a LTS version at all...
I own three computers. Because of intel CPU regression in 4.9.xx, both
my asus eeePC and my Toshiba Laptop are booting on linux 4.4.xx LTS.
Only my main desktop computer which is using an Athlon X2-215 is
booting on linux 4.9.x.
Hi,

Thanks for the info and bug links.

I have my own issue with 4.9 on a particular machine running an Intel
Celeron G550 and has Radeon 7700 graphics. I happily ran kernel 4.8.13
with xorg-server, ati driver (radeon) and mesa from testing. The fun
came when I added kernel 4.9.1 and during use I got fullscreen RGB
noise and an underlay square cursor representation. Only recovery from
that was reset button.

Does this mean we will see 4.8.16 being built and pushed out to users?

Regards

Phil
--
Play the game, for the games sake.

OS of choice: Arch / Antergos

GitHub: https://github.com/philwyettreb

Intsant Messaging (XMPP): ***@chatme.im
Bruno Pagani via arch-general
2017-01-09 19:07:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Phil Wyett via arch-general
Post by fredbezies via arch-general
Sorry to reply to Phil Wyet this way. I enabled digest mode for arch-
general.
You won't see soon linux 4.9.x in core because it is kinda rotten with
some Intel CPUs.
You cannot get it to boot on some intel CPUs like an old T4200 or younger ones.
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/52246
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/52271
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/52243
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/52238
In addition to my previous comment on Arch Policy regarding the kernel,
I should have added: search for bug reports with linux or the next
version in the title. If you use the “Bug reports” button on
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/testing/x86_64/linux, be sure to
switch “Category” to “All Categories” in the search interface, or you’ll
missed most of them
 just like I did when I checked before posting my
previous mail to this thread

Post by Phil Wyett via arch-general
Post by fredbezies via arch-general
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192111
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=191801
Looks like linux 4.9 won't be a LTS version at all...
Isn’t 4.10 supposed to be the next LTS rather than 4.9?
Post by Phil Wyett via arch-general
Post by fredbezies via arch-general
I own three computers. Because of intel CPU regression in 4.9.xx, both
my asus eeePC and my Toshiba Laptop are booting on linux 4.4.xx LTS.
Only my main desktop computer which is using an Athlon X2-215 is
booting on linux 4.9.x.
Hi,
Thanks for the info and bug links.
I have my own issue with 4.9 on a particular machine running an Intel
Celeron G550 and has Radeon 7700 graphics. I happily ran kernel 4.8.13
with xorg-server, ati driver (radeon) and mesa from testing. The fun
came when I added kernel 4.9.1 and during use I got fullscreen RGB
noise and an underlay square cursor representation. Only recovery from
that was reset button.
Does this mean we will see 4.8.16 being built and pushed out to users?
This could indeed be done (it’s even 4.8.17 as of today) if 4.9.2 still
doesn’t fix those issues (it has been discussed before that Arch should
continue to package updates to the kernel if the new one isn’t ready for
consumption), but that’s up to @tpowa. ;)

Cheers,
Bruno
Eli Schwartz via arch-general
2017-01-09 19:18:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bruno Pagani via arch-general
Post by Phil Wyett via arch-general
Does this mean we will see 4.8.16 being built and pushed out to users?
This could indeed be done (it’s even 4.8.17 as of today) if 4.9.2 still
doesn’t fix those issues (it has been discussed before that Arch should
continue to package updates to the kernel if the new one isn’t ready for
Well, the kernel still needs to go through [testing] (which is where we
are currently testing 4.9). So maybe that would happen if tpowa gives up
on 4.9 for now altogether.

I'm a bit confused as to why the svntogit logs claim 4.9.2 was pushed to
testing, but the repos still show 4.9.1
--
Eli Schwartz
Bruno Pagani via arch-general
2017-01-09 19:25:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Eli Schwartz via arch-general
Post by Bruno Pagani via arch-general
Post by Phil Wyett via arch-general
Does this mean we will see 4.8.16 being built and pushed out to users?
This could indeed be done (it’s even 4.8.17 as of today) if 4.9.2 still
doesn’t fix those issues (it has been discussed before that Arch should
continue to package updates to the kernel if the new one isn’t ready for
Well, the kernel still needs to go through [testing] (which is where we
are currently testing 4.9). So maybe that would happen if tpowa gives up
on 4.9 for now altogether.
I'm a bit confused as to why the svntogit logs claim 4.9.2 was pushed to
testing, but the repos still show 4.9.1
Well, I’ve often seen a bit of discrepancy between svntogit logs and the
repos. Like a package to be updated on my system, but when I go to see
what was changed, nothing
 I admit not being and expert in archweb
internals, so whether that is kind of expected or not, but I seem to
remember there was a discussion about this one day on a ML even if can’t
find that again right now.

Bruno
Carsten Mattner via arch-general
2017-01-10 13:53:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
FYI, 4.8 has been EOL'd, leaving 4.4-lts, 4.1-lts as options for
arch "default" kernel until 4.10 is released if we assume that
there's a critical fix in the stable patch queue.

My criticism of the stable patch queue is that they mix fixes
with actual feature patches, making it more risky and not
upholding a important fixes only policy.
Mike Cloaked via arch-general
2017-01-10 16:55:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Carsten Mattner via arch-general <
Post by Carsten Mattner via arch-general
FYI, 4.8 has been EOL'd, leaving 4.4-lts, 4.1-lts as options for
arch "default" kernel until 4.10 is released if we assume that
there's a critical fix in the stable patch queue.
My criticism of the stable patch queue is that they mix fixes
with actual feature patches, making it more risky and not
upholding a important fixes only policy.
Looks like there are some patches to try and are being tested for kernel
4.9 - see https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=191121
--
mike c
Genes Lists via arch-general
2017-01-11 04:50:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike Cloaked via arch-general
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Carsten Mattner via arch-general <
...
Looks like there are some patches to try and are being tested for kernel
4.9 - see https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=191121
For me this is an EFI issue introduced in 4.9-rc1 - as described in
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=191801
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=191121

the EFI patch applied to 4.10-rc3 is now bootable again. I need to test
4.9.2 as well but am pretty sure this will work too.

I will note that not everyone having issues is using efi - so there
could well be more than one issue involved here.

regards,
--
Gene
***@sapience.com
Eli Schwartz via arch-general
2017-01-10 19:14:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Carsten Mattner via arch-general
My criticism of the stable patch queue is that they mix fixes
with actual feature patches, making it more risky and not
upholding a important fixes only policy.
That would depend on whether you understand "stable" to be "LTS" or
"let's not just pile on all the experimental stuff that may break
everything".

I am pretty sure there is already, in fact, an LTS kernel. You even
mentioned it yourself.
--
Eli Schwartz
Carsten Mattner via arch-general
2017-01-10 21:07:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Eli Schwartz via arch-general
Post by Carsten Mattner via arch-general
My criticism of the stable patch queue is that they mix fixes
with actual feature patches, making it more risky and not
upholding a important fixes only policy.
That would depend on whether you understand "stable" to be "LTS" or
"let's not just pile on all the experimental stuff that may break
everything".
Since drivers are bundled in the kernel tree, we regularly run into
many driver regressions and that's my primary objection to the
missing quality assurance there. The community is doing an
outstanding amount of testing already but the ranger of supported
hardware is not covered by the testers and constant churn of code
because it's part of a moving amalgamation in linux.git causes more
issues than we would have with drivers targering a kernel ABI.
One thing it would help make abundantly clear is when a driver
maintainer stops supporting an old driver version. Now it's russian
roulette for hardware to break when updating from one stable to
the next supported stable kernel. Like it happened with 4.2 in DRM
or the 4.9 boot problems which seem to be UEFI-exclusive.
Post by Eli Schwartz via arch-general
I am pretty sure there is already, in fact, an LTS kernel. You even
mentioned it yourself.
There are multiple LTS branches with one LTS being Greg's tree.
Loading...