Re: [vserver] linux 3.10.4[123] and patch-3.10.40-vs2.3.6.8.diff

From: Corey Wright <>
Date: Thu 12 Jun 2014 - 19:14:07 BST
Message-Id: <>

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 16:57:01 +0100
Ben Green <> wrote:

> Quoting Corey Wright <>:
> > i see people hop on irc or post to the mailing list saying the latest
> > official patch won't apply to the latest kernel version, but they haven't
> > tried the patch i've provided (yes, it sometimes works across major kernel
> > versions) nor offered to help herbert (technically or financially).
> >
> > i also understand that it's to herbert's benefit to care for the community so
> > that people don't leave and he lose his testers and other benefits (but i'm
> > also comfortable with him porting linux-vserver to newer major kernel
> > versions and the community port to newer minor versions).
> >
> > anyways, just a suggestion to the community at large.
> What I do with the repos is to only compile with the patches Herbert
> releases. They do take a while sometimes, but if there's any
> suggestion you have as to how I could be part of speeding up that
> process that would be great. Compiling an entire kernel to test a
> patch is a tall order for most people, even those of us who do that
> sort of thing regularly.
> I guess what I'm saying is that part "community port to newer minor
> versions" sounds like it might have some mileage, but how?

when a new minor version of the upstream kernel is released, the community...
 1. tests the latest official patch and reports to the mailing list (and irc)
 2. provides patches if there is a patch reject (apart from Makefile)
 3. reviews community patches
 4. tests linux-vserver patched kernels (with or without community patches)
 5. elevates to Herbert if there's any question about a patch (community or

this is what i've been doing to-date. you can see from my past emails on
this subject that i'm not too shy/proud to ask Herbert to review my patches
when I have the slightest doubt.

> How would we ensure sufficient testing of the community patches? Is
> there a procedure we can follow that would mean Herbert would be
> satisfied enough with the quality of the community patches he'd allow
> them to distributed on the linux-vserver website?

i think code review is more important than testing of the patch as we already
know the patch works (if properly applied). it's not that these patches add
new untested functionality, but they just don't apply to current versions
(and usually only because of a change in patch context so that diff can't
figure out where to apply it).

and i can't speak for Herbert, but i'm comfortable after having reviewed and
tested (test{me,fs}.sh in virtualbox) any patches. and i don't know that
it'll help Herbert, but it should address those users who are asking for a
patch to the latest, greatest upstream kernel (minor version, of course).
but some people will never be satisfied and demand that they be
"official" (ie a single patch straight from Herbert's hard drive).

honestly, i'm already doing the work and i would appreciate a little bit of
feedback (ie review and testing). again, i would like to thank Florian and
think that if there was more feedback/input that the community would put more
faith in this "unofficial" work.

i'm still going to keep on doing what i'm doing, so i don't really care (just
perturbed by the individuals asking for updated patches, but ignoring my
contribution and not offering compensation to Herbert.)

> Cheers,
> Ben


Received on Thu Jun 12 19:12:58 2014
[Next/Previous Months] [Main vserver Project Homepage] [Howto Subscribe/Unsubscribe] [Paul Sladen's vserver stuff]
Generated on Thu 12 Jun 2014 - 19:12:58 BST by hypermail 2.1.8