The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.25 !!!

silver · 2008-04-17 05:42:08

The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.25
as u know
http://www.kernel.org/

after testing ,hope included in final core iso

2008.04

Ashren · 2008-04-17 05:59:24

And which of the new features are you looking forward to?

Roberth · 2008-04-17 06:28:06

The feature I'm looking forward to is cmi8788 and Asus Xonar support.

xd-0 · 2008-04-17 08:21:33

Isn't there ext4 support built in?

Ashren · 2008-04-17 08:25:38

It looks quite interesting: http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_25

silver · 2008-04-17 08:30:37

Ashren wrote:

And which of the new features are you looking forward to?

to me:

Add initial ATI r500 DRM support. (commit)

ext4 update

silver · 2008-04-17 08:31:55

Ashren wrote:

It looks quite interesting: http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_25

yes, very interesting!

ekerazha · 2008-04-17 09:51:24

xd-0 wrote:

Isn't there ext4 support built in?

I'm not sure if this is still "dev" or not, however there shouldn't be other on-disk format changes (and some 2.6.25-based distributions, like Fedora 9, will include EXT4 support) so it could be nice to have EXT4 compiled "built-in" instead of an external module.

Mikko777 · 2008-04-17 10:23:29

ekerazha wrote:

xd-0 wrote:
Isn't there ext4 support built in?
I'm not sure if this is still "dev" or not, however there shouldn't be other on-disk format changes (and some 2.6.25-based distributions, like Fedora 9, will include EXT4 support) so it could be nice to have EXT4 compiled "built-in" instead of an external module.

Yup i'd use it.

zodmaner · 2008-04-17 10:44:58

Wait, is EXT4 stable enough for daily usage?

tomk · 2008-04-17 10:54:51

We don't build in any filesystems in the Arch kernel - everything's a module.

silver wrote:

after testing ,hope included in final core iso

Rolling release, so it doesn't matter. Install Arch with whatever's in the iso, update your system, keep it updated, and you'll get 2.6.25 as soon as we release it.

Unless you believe you need r500 DRM and ext4 at install time...

Pierre · 2008-04-17 10:59:13

Afaik ext4 still has development status.

ekerazha · 2008-04-17 11:17:06

tomk wrote:

Unless you believe you need r500 DRM and ext4 at install time...

Well... if you want to use EXT4 for the root partition, it would be welcome.

However it was announced there will be a new ISO on every new kernel release, wasn't it?

Last edited by ekerazha (2008-04-17 11:18:16)

brain0 · 2008-04-17 12:19:37

ekerazha wrote:

xd-0 wrote:
Isn't there ext4 support built in?
I'm not sure if this is still "dev" or not, however there shouldn't be other on-disk format changes (and some 2.6.25-based distributions, like Fedora 9, will include EXT4 support) so it could be nice to have EXT4 compiled "built-in" instead of an external module.

First of all, ext4 is under heavy development and possibly buggy. Furthermore, the on-disk format is not guaranteed to be stable yet. Second, we don't have a single filesystem built into the kernel, they are all modular - and I don't see a reason why this should ever change.

Last edited by brain0 (2008-04-17 12:20:16)

ekerazha · 2008-04-17 12:28:49

brain0 wrote:

First of all, ext4 is under heavy development and possibly buggy. Furthermore, the on-disk format is not guaranteed to be stable yet.

No, it's not under heavy development, it is almost complete. The only missing part is the "dalayed allocation". The on-disk format, as I've already said, shouldn't change anymore.

With this patch series, it is expected that ext4 format should be settling
down. We still have delayed allocation and online defrag which aren't
quite ready to merge, but those shouldn't affect the on-disk format.
I don't expect any other on-disk format changes to show up after this
point, but I've been wrong before.... any such changes would have to
have a Really Good Reason, though.

Source: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/21/392

brain0 wrote:

Second, we don't have a single filesystem built into the kernel, they are all modular - and I don't see a reason why this should ever change.

I remembered some filesystems were "built-in". Evidently I remember wrong (well... and I remember the filesystem for the root partition had to be built into the kernel, but my knowledge on this point is not very updated).

Last edited by ekerazha (2008-04-17 12:44:38)

silver · 2008-04-17 12:45:04

In fact too mang excited features in kernel 2.6.25
it'd be nice if included in final arch iso!

toofishes · 2008-04-17 12:47:19

OMG hwy is Arch so slwo at the updlate!!!!!

What does it matter which kernel is on the ISO? Do you guys do a reinstall daily, or what? And doing a tit-for-tat on brain0's comments (one of our kernel maintainers!) is surely the best way to get 2.6.25 released. I bet he loves the positive feedback.

brain0 · 2008-04-17 13:14:28

ekerazha wrote:

brain0 wrote:
First of all, ext4 is under heavy development and possibly buggy. Furthermore, the on-disk format is not guaranteed to be stable yet.
No, it's not under heavy development, it is almost complete. The only missing part is the "dalayed allocation". The on-disk format, as I've already said, shouldn't change anymore.
With this patch series, it is expected that ext4 format should be settling
down. We still have delayed allocation and online defrag which aren't
quite ready to merge, but those shouldn't affect the on-disk format.
I don't expect any other on-disk format changes to show up after this
point, but I've been wrong before.... any such changes would have to
have a Really Good Reason, though.
Source: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/21/392

If you read this carefully, you don't want to use ext4 just now. You also should consider that ext4 is virtually untested compared to filesystems like ext3 which has been used for years in many production environments. I wouldn't read "I don't expect any other on-disk format changes" as "There will be no more changes" if I had important data.

brain0 wrote:
Second, we don't have a single filesystem built into the kernel, they are all modular - and I don't see a reason why this should ever change.
I remembered some filesystems were "built-in". Evidently I remember wrong (well... and I remember the filesystem for the root partition had to be built into the kernel, but my knowledge on this point is not very updated).

You're so 90's. If we would build everything into the kernel that everyone needed to boot, it would be 5MB or 10MB instead of just 2MB. Everything is as modular as possible now (there are some exceptions which should be ironed out in one of the next releases).

brain0 · 2008-04-17 13:16:51

toofishes wrote:

OMG hwy is Arch so slwo at the updlate!!!!!
What does it matter which kernel is on the ISO? Do you guys do a reinstall daily, or what? And doing a tit-for-tat on brain0's comments (one of our kernel maintainers!) is surely the best way to get 2.6.25 released. I bet he loves the positive feedback.

We're really slow. OMG, the kernel has been released hours ago, why didn't I get it with yesterday's update? Why haven't there been -rc releases in testing for weeks? WHY???

If Arch is unlucky, there won't be a new kernel in testing before the 24th.

Misfit138 · 2008-04-17 13:19:34

2.6.25 seems like an exciting kernel. I look forward to it.
It's nice that the kernel is so actively developed; there's always something to look forward to. Like many software projects, though, it does suffer from regression here and there..but that's exciting too. Then we can bitch about it and try to fix it.

ekerazha · 2008-04-17 13:24:04

brain0 wrote:

I wouldn't read "I don't expect any other on-disk format changes" as "There will be no more changes" if I had important data.

Well, "impossible is nothing", but it is highly unlikely.

You're so 90's. If we would build everything into the kernel that everyone needed to boot, it would be 5MB or 10MB instead of just 2MB. Everything is as modular as possible now (there are some exceptions which should be ironed out in one of the next releases).

Yeah in 1998 tutorials said the filesystem for the root partition had to be built into the kernel because kernel modules are on the filesystem, so it couldn't load modules from the filesystem before mouting the filesystem itself.

Allan · 2008-04-17 13:24:41

The news only arrived on slashdot: http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?si … /17/126236 . I knew about this hours ago because of the Arch forums.... Slashdot used to be current news.

Last edited by Allan (2008-04-17 13:24:59)

nDray · 2008-04-17 13:35:46

I'm looking forward to iwlwifi 1.2. Will install testing

.:B:. · 2008-04-17 22:24:51

toofishes wrote:

OMG hwy is Arch so slwo at the updlate!!!!!
What does it matter which kernel is on the ISO? Do you guys do a reinstall daily, or what? And doing a tit-for-tat on brain0's comments (one of our kernel maintainers!) is surely the best way to get 2.6.25 released. I bet he loves the positive feedback.

+1

We need a different public to cater to it seems.

neotuli · 2008-04-17 22:34:37

toofishes wrote:

OMG hwy is Arch so slwo at the updlate!!!!!

+++++1!!!!!

:mad::mad::mad::mad: I hate it when the stuff I get for free isn't up to date. WTF?!??!?!

Arch Linux

#1 2008-04-17 05:42:08

The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.25 !!!

#2 2008-04-17 05:59:24

Re: The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.25 !!!

#3 2008-04-17 06:28:06

Re: The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.25 !!!

#4 2008-04-17 08:21:33

Re: The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.25 !!!

#5 2008-04-17 08:25:38

Re: The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.25 !!!

#6 2008-04-17 08:30:37

Re: The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.25 !!!

#7 2008-04-17 08:31:55

Re: The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.25 !!!

#8 2008-04-17 09:51:24

Re: The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.25 !!!

#9 2008-04-17 10:23:29

Re: The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.25 !!!

#10 2008-04-17 10:44:58

Re: The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.25 !!!

#11 2008-04-17 10:54:51

Re: The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.25 !!!

#12 2008-04-17 10:59:13

Re: The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.25 !!!

#13 2008-04-17 11:17:06

Re: The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.25 !!!

#14 2008-04-17 12:19:37

Re: The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.25 !!!

#15 2008-04-17 12:28:49

Re: The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.25 !!!

#16 2008-04-17 12:45:04

Re: The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.25 !!!

#17 2008-04-17 12:47:19

Re: The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.25 !!!

#18 2008-04-17 13:14:28

Re: The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.25 !!!

#19 2008-04-17 13:16:51

Re: The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.25 !!!

#20 2008-04-17 13:19:34

Re: The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.25 !!!

#21 2008-04-17 13:24:04

Re: The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.25 !!!

#22 2008-04-17 13:24:41

Re: The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.25 !!!

#23 2008-04-17 13:35:46

Re: The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.25 !!!

#24 2008-04-17 22:24:51

Re: The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.25 !!!

#25 2008-04-17 22:34:37

Re: The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.25 !!!

Board footer