Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Kernel 2.4.17 Out

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the download-compile-reboot-repeat dept.

ThatComputerGuy writes "Linux kernel 2.4.17 is final, with a lot of fixes/updates. Check out the huge changelog. If you're on a desktop machine, you should try using RML's preempt patch, it definitely helps response times."

15 of 350 comments (clear)

  1. It appears to actually be fixes by Anthony+Boyd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It looks like we're actually seeing 99% bug fixes this time around, rather than new features being added. Yay for having a 2.5 branch, it seems to be getting the experimental code now. This may be the first 2.4 kernel I compile for my system (I'm not saying I'm still stuck in 2.2, just that I've kept the default 2.4 kernels from my Mandrake and SuSE installs). I also see a couple ext3 fixes, which means I'm pretty comfortable having this replace the patched-to-use-ext3 2.4.10 kernel in my SuSE 7.3 box.

    --
    My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
  2. VIA KT133 chipset? by blogan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does it work with the KT133a Chipset and Athlons? I looked and google and there were reports of the problem, but no report of a fix anywhere that I could find.

  3. What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm all for stable vs. unstable forks, but at several points the changes to the 'unstable' one just start rolling back anyways. So, why keep maintaining 2.4? or 2.2? or 0.1? Another thing is even vs. odd naming, why not just put a b beside the version number of an unstable release? How does it make sense that odd is unstable? Lastly, who the hell decided to do the 0.10 > 0.9 thing? Would it kill people to make a small bugfix update a .01 or .001 incriment if it meant you wouldn't have to fuck over the decimal system?

  4. Misguided versioning? by kurtras · · Score: 4, Interesting

    After several of the last few kernels being released with major bugs, I thought the consensus on LKML was to use -rc versions for bugfixes, and then release a 'final' without making any changes in it. Yet, when I read this changelog, I see that changes were made in the final version. A lot of people will only download a 'final' kernel, because they think that it contains only tested, stable code. That is what the -rc system was to ensure, but releasing a 'final' with changes means that a partially untested kernel is being released to the unsuspecting public. Now, I will admit that there's a very good solution that any user can implement - just don't upgrade. However, these recent quality control problems have given Linux something of a black eye in the public's mind. Therefore, it just seems common sense to not release a kernel with code that hasn't been in for at least one -pre or -rc revision. So, if I were a kernel maintainer, about to release kernel 2.4.18, and I received a 'critical' patch from a project maintainer, I'd make one last -rc release to ensure that the code gets tested before I release it. However, I'm not a kernel maintainer, so take this as you will. I don't mean it as a flame, and I think that Linus and Marcelo have done a wonderful job so far with Linux 2.4.

  5. Cache/Buffer Fixes by Mish · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I don't know if anyone else is as happy as I am right now to see these fixes in the changelog...

    - Make kernel try a bit harder to shrink caches
    instead swapping out
    - Fix VM problems where cache/buffers didn't get
    freed

    The 2.4 series has been plagued by these problems, thank god that they might finally be over...

  6. NTFS bug fixes? by Mr.+McGibby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Any word on what the NTFS bug fixes involved? Any closer to a usable readwrite mode?

    --
    Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
  7. AMD K7 SSE by BrookHarty · · Score: 3, Interesting

    in the changelong I noticed...
    pre5 - Enable K7 SSE (John Clemens)

    So we now have SSE for the K7 cpu? Does any programs on linux even take the extra speed of SSE/MMX/3D NOW? I have always wondered since these type of optimizations are only visible when the software application lists it, and most software is for windows.

  8. Re:YAY ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Check out http://dualcpus.com/fuckingwoot/ It's a photo shoot of a 16 year old Brazillian hottie. Pass it on. [No goatse.cx guarantee. This is not a troll.]

  9. loopback deadlocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    final:

    - Fix more loopback deadlocks (Andrea Arcangeli)

    the very first line of the changelog is scaring my ass of. this sounds like there are some / an unknown number of loopback deadlocks still lurking and nobody knows where, until it jumps out to rip your head off.

  10. BZ2 vs GZ by jquirke · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Something I feel like asking as 2.4.17 (bz2) trickles down the connection at 0.2K/sec from Australia's Planetmirror...

    The kernel's are posted in both GZ and BZ2 formats. What do you guys mostly use? I can't see much point these days with having the Gzip format, I mean is there still a point to downloading it? Or even having them available in that format?

    From what I can see, removing the Gzipped versions

    *reduces network congestion
    *saves space on the mirrors
    *saves space on local storage (yeah only a couple megs)

    Of course, it requires more processing time to extract, but that seems to be no big deal these days. I'm pretty sure everyone has bzip2 installed , and those who don't can easily get it, so that can't be a problem.

    So is it really just traditional reasons it's posted in Gzipped format? Tell me if I've missed something. It would be interesting to know what everyone thinks about this.

    1. Re:BZ2 vs GZ by Gregg+Alan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I only use bz2 for the kernel. Seems to me that processing power is cheaper than bandwidth (lucky for me I have plenty of both.)

      If the extra time to decompress a bz2 over a gz is that great a factor, why would you even want to compile a kernel on that particular machine? Compile it on your fast box and just copy it over. That's what I do.

      --
      Here before all but 8486 of you.
    2. Re:BZ2 vs GZ by Ed+Avis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you're worried about download time, just get the patches!

      (Okay that only works if you've got the previous version - you can download a whole sequence of patches for bigger jumps, but after a while it gets bigger than the kernel itself. I'd like to see a general patch generator where you type in what version you currently have and it generates the smallest patch file just for you. Alternatively some way of using rsync would save on bandwidth.)

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  11. can anyone compile it? by seandarcy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've got it. I'm trying to compile it. It fails at make bzImage compiling network.o. See the snippet.

    Anyone know how to fix it?

    ld -m elf_i386 -T /opt/kernel/linux-2.4.17/arch/i386/vmlinux.lds -e stext arch/i386/kernel/head.o arch/i386/kernel/init_tas
    k.o init/main.o init/version.o \
    --start-group \
    arch/i386/kernel/kernel.o arch/i386/mm/mm.o kernel/kernel.o mm/mm.o fs/fs.o ipc/ipc.o \
    drivers/char/char.o drivers/block/block.o drivers/misc/misc.o drivers/net/net.o drivers/media/media.o drivers/char
    /agp/agp.o drivers/ide/idedriver.o drivers/scsi/scsidrv.o drivers/cdrom/driver.o drivers/sound/sounddrivers.o drivers/pci/d
    river.o drivers/pnp/pnp.o drivers/video/video.o drivers/md/mddev.o \
    net/network.o \
    /opt/kernel/linux-2.4.17/arch/i386/lib/lib.a /opt/kernel/linux-2.4.17/lib/lib.a /opt/kernel/linux-2.4.17/arch/i386/
    lib/lib.a \
    --end-group \
    -o vmlinux
    net/network.o: In function `__rpc_schedule':
    net/network.o(.text+0x49a0d): undefined reference to `rpciod_tcp_dispatcher'
    make: *** [vmlinux] Error 1

  12. 2.4 by Arjuna+Theban · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've been using linux since the very early 2.0.* days and for the most part I keep up with every kernel released. Since I've moved to 2.4.*, I've notices an incredible slowdown on my machine, even in post-2.4.13 kernels which supposedly did something to improve performance.

    Personally I'm about ready to go back to good old fast&stable&reliable 2.2 tree. I wonder if we really need to make the kernel this sluggish for the sake of introducing new stuff in the kernel level though. I know I'm not the only one who noticed the performance drop with 2.4.*.

    --

  13. Preempt patch and 3rd party modules by loftwyr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I installed the patch, recompiled and both ALSA 5.12a and nvidia's kernel module were broken. I got unresolved symbols.

    It would be nice if there was some way to exempt these two from the optimization or there was a doc explaining what I would need to change