Stable kernels

Ioan Ionita opslynx at
Tue May 2 19:43:27 PDT 2006

On 5/2/06, Archaic <archaic at> wrote:

> I disagree. There is no stable 2.6 upstream kernel. That is intentional.
> The 4th dotted increment (since the 3rd is patchlevel, what is the 4th
> called? micro?) means nothing to kernel devs anymore. It is not just for
> bug fixes. New features are often added or at least heavily modified
> from 2.6.xx.y to 2.6.xx.y+1.
Actually, there is a _very_ strict set of rules followed before a
patch is merged and a new .y release is made. A voting takes place and
the patch cannot by definition be intrusive. All people involved know
_exactly_ what's going on with the patch. Here's part of the
guidelines for the -stable branch, as outlined by Linus Torvalds:

   Also, I'd suggest that a _hard_ rule (ie nobody can override it) would
   also be that the problem causes an oops, a hang, or a real security
   problem that somebody can come up with an exploit for (ie no "there
   could be a two-instruction race" crap. Only "there is a race, and
   here's how you exploit it"). The exploit wouldn't need to be full code
   that gets root, but an explanation of it, at least.

Full archive can be found at:

So NO, you or any other LFS developer don't need to test -stable
releases. In fact, you probably can't even have tests for a majority
of the problems that these patches address in the first place. You
simply are not qualified or don't have the means to test for them. A
-stable release doesn't break anything. The maintainers strictly
adhere to the rules.  Please show us changelogs with proof that new
features are added or heavily modified between 2.6.x.y and 2.6.x.y+1
and I will crawl back under my rock.



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list