Mailing List Archive

On Friday, 11 November 2022 06:25:27 GMT Dale wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> I been stuck on gentoo-sources 5.14.15 for a while. I tried upgrading
> to I think 5.16 and then more recently 5.18. I upgraded like I always
> do, copy .config over and run make oldconfig. Once I get everything in
> /boot, init thingy and all, I update grub. When I get around to
> rebooting, the new kernels always fail part way through booting. I
> can't recall the error since I last tried a newer kernel several months
> ago.
>
> I'm about to try to jump to version 6.0.5 which is latest in the tree.
> Is there some major change that causes copying .config file from 5.14 to
> 5.18 or higher to break? Do I need to configure a new kernel from
> scratch in other words? While I try to answer each question the best I
> can, either I'm breaking something or something else breaks preventing
> updating from older versions. I just don't know which it is. Me or it.

The evidence seems to point in one direction. :)

One box here runs ~amd64, whose kernel has just now been upgraded to 6.0.8.
I'll boot it in a few minutes, but I'm not expecting problems: it's been
through the whole 6 series so far with no difficulty - even for me!

I can't remember any difficulty going from the 5 series to 6.0.0 either, even
though it was a .0 version, which we all know is generally to be suspected.

--
Regards,
Peter.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 at 11:30, Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> I can't remember any difficulty going from the 5 series to 6.0.0 either, even
> though it was a .0 version, which we all know is generally to be suspected.

Not when it comes to the linux kernel though, where major version
changes are arbitrary and comes around the x.19/20/21 switch no matter
which new features are in it.

Regards,
Arve

On 11/11/2022 10:35, Arve Barsnes wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 at 11:30, Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> I can't remember any difficulty going from the 5 series to 6.0.0 either, even
>> though it was a .0 version, which we all know is generally to be suspected.
>
> Not when it comes to the linux kernel though, where major version
> changes are arbitrary and comes around the x.19/20/21 switch no matter
> which new features are in it.
>
It's the "fingers and toes reset" :-)

Cheers,
Wol

Am 11.11.22 um 07:25 schrieb Dale:
> I been stuck on gentoo-sources 5.14.15 for a while.  I tried upgrading
> to I think 5.16 and then more recently 5.18.  I upgraded like I always
> do, copy .config over and run make oldconfig.  Once I get everything in
> /boot, init thingy and all, I update grub.  When I get around to
> rebooting, the new kernels always fail part way through booting.  I
> can't recall the error since I last tried a newer kernel several months
> ago.

Do you follow the guide on gentoo wiki?

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Kernel/Upgrade

I don't know why but building and installing is not in this article. For
that I do follow this one (there is a link from kernel upgrade to this
on, but it is kind of hidden)

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Kernel/Configuration#Build

On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 1:25 AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is there some major change that causes copying .config file from 5.14 to
> 5.18 or higher to break?

So, I just upgraded to 5.15 recently and tend to stick to LTS kernels,
precisely to minimize this sort of thing.

My guess is that you missed something in make oldconfig, but obviously
without exact errors that could be completely wrong.

I can't speak to 6.0 specifically, but one thing that I've found is a
gotcha is when they consolidate config items under higher level ones.
So they'll take what used to be 50 questions, and turn it into 1
question with 50 questions underneath it. The 1 question shows up as
a new config item, and if you don't appreciate what it does and answer
no to it, then you'll disable every item underneath it.

Basically, don't assume that any new question is a new feature, and if
you say no you'll still have all the pre-existing features. It could
be a virtual question and answering no turns off a whole bunch of
things that you had previously said yes to. You need to review
oldconfig questions pretty carefully. You could try defaulting the
answers but even then the defaults aren't always reasonable. They
don't just turn on things you don't need. For example, by default
linux turns off CGROUP support, and almost everything uses that today.
That was just the first thing I checked, and I bet there are a million
other gotchas like that.

--
Rich

>
>
>
>P. S. Bought yet another 14TB hard drive. Working on filling it up now. While my Cooler Master HAF-932 case is large, I need more drive bays. Dang cases are pricey right now. :/


Bought one of these for a client's custom build recently. Enough 5.25" bays to mount in two of my favorite 4-drive hotswap cages, plus then another 6 internal 3.5" bays.

And the huge cooling fans don't have to spin very fast, so it's nice and quiet.

Just note that it barely fits under the average desk.


https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16811147053

LMP

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arve Barsnes <arve.barsnes@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 2:36 AM
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Upgrading from 5.14 to 6.0 version
>
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 at 11:30, Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> > I can't remember any difficulty going from the 5 series to 6.0.0
> > either, even though it was a .0 version, which we all know is generally to be suspected.
>
> Not when it comes to the linux kernel though, where major version changes are arbitrary and comes around the x.19/20/21 switch no matter which new features are in it.
>
> Regards,
> Arve
>
>
I can respect the fact that they've decided to increment it more often since the code is changing so much, but the 2.x to 3.x switch really should have been when they decided to drop support for the 80386 processor, and they deprecate and drop things more than often enough these days that they could easily tie it to that rather than having it be arbitrary, and therefore meaningless.

Where it's a kernel it doesn't have to break everything for everyone to justify incrementing the major. Breaking something for somebody would be sufficient.

LMP

hitachi303 wrote:
> Am 11.11.22 um 07:25 schrieb Dale:
>> I been stuck on gentoo-sources 5.14.15 for a while.  I tried upgrading
>> to I think 5.16 and then more recently 5.18.  I upgraded like I always
>> do, copy .config over and run make oldconfig.  Once I get everything in
>> /boot, init thingy and all, I update grub.  When I get around to
>> rebooting, the new kernels always fail part way through booting.  I
>> can't recall the error since I last tried a newer kernel several months
>> ago.
>
> Do you follow the guide on gentoo wiki?
>
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Kernel/Upgrade
>
> I don't know why but building and installing is not in this article.
> For that I do follow this one (there is a link from kernel upgrade to
> this on, but it is kind of hidden)
>
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Kernel/Configuration#Build
>
> .
>


I haven't had to follow a guide in ages.  I been building my own kernels
for almost 20 years now.  My problem is that the two updated kernels
doesn't work.  If it was just one version, it could just be a bad build
or something.  Thing is, I tried updating from a working config to two
different versions and both failed.  I suspect that something major
changed and going from a old config file may not work.  Thing is, I
don't know if that is the case or not.  It could be, hence the question,
but it could be something else or just that I missed something and
someone else knows what that something is because they ran into it
earlier. 

I wish when they did major changes, they would also change the number
scheme to reflect that.  As I read in another post, sometimes even a
number change in the third place can give a very different kernel,
something major removed or added.  Unless one reads all the posts on the
kernel mailing list, one wouldn't know that change happened. 

I did build a new kernel from the old config and running make
oldconfig.  When I get around to rebooting, I'll see if it works or
not.  If not, I'll note the error and see if that gives any clues. 

Thanks.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 1:25 AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is there some major change that causes copying .config file from 5.14 to
>> 5.18 or higher to break?
> So, I just upgraded to 5.15 recently and tend to stick to LTS kernels,
> precisely to minimize this sort of thing.
>
> My guess is that you missed something in make oldconfig, but obviously
> without exact errors that could be completely wrong.
>
> I can't speak to 6.0 specifically, but one thing that I've found is a
> gotcha is when they consolidate config items under higher level ones.
> So they'll take what used to be 50 questions, and turn it into 1
> question with 50 questions underneath it. The 1 question shows up as
> a new config item, and if you don't appreciate what it does and answer
> no to it, then you'll disable every item underneath it.
>
> Basically, don't assume that any new question is a new feature, and if
> you say no you'll still have all the pre-existing features. It could
> be a virtual question and answering no turns off a whole bunch of
> things that you had previously said yes to. You need to review
> oldconfig questions pretty carefully. You could try defaulting the
> answers but even then the defaults aren't always reasonable. They
> don't just turn on things you don't need. For example, by default
> linux turns off CGROUP support, and almost everything uses that today.
> That was just the first thing I checked, and I bet there are a million
> other gotchas like that.
>
> --
> Rich
>
>


I don't blindly answer those questions even tho it can be time consuming
at times. I tend to look at a new feature as something I don't need,
since I'm not adding hardware.  I still look to see if it is something
new that could be useful.  The new features are usually marked as new so
they're easy to see.  What gets me, it asks for something that I've
already done before and it has the option I chose before already
selected but asks me anyway.  That's kinda weird. 

When I was going through oldconfig, I noticed that when I answered yes
to a new thing, files system option that I could possibly need one day,
that a whole bunch of related new stuff followed behind it.  It makes
logical sense but it does open a can of worms for sure. 

I wish there was a better way to update kernels but thing is, I can't
figure out a better way to do it either.  I suspect if there was a
better way, someone would have figured it out by now anyway.  ;-)

Now to reboot this thing, eventually.  lol

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Dale,

On Friday, 2022-11-11 13:18:08 -0600, you wrote:

> ...
> I did build a new kernel from the old config and running make
> oldconfig.

Perhaps you should rather use

make olddefconfig

It tries not to just ignore any newly introduced configuration variables
but rather to provide meaningful defaults for them.

Sincerely
Rainer

On 11/11/22 07:25, Dale wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> I been stuck on gentoo-sources 5.14.15 for a while.  I tried upgrading
> to I think 5.16 and then more recently 5.18.  I upgraded like I always
> do, copy .config over and run make oldconfig.  Once I get everything in
> /boot, init thingy and all, I update grub.  When I get around to
> rebooting, the new kernels always fail part way through booting.  I
> can't recall the error since I last tried a newer kernel several months
> ago.
>
> I'm about to try to jump to version 6.0.5 which is latest in the tree.
> Is there some major change that causes copying .config file from 5.14 to
> 5.18 or higher to break?  Do I need to configure a new kernel from
> scratch in other words?  While I try to answer each question the best I
> can, either I'm breaking something or something else breaks preventing
> updating from older versions.  I just don't know which it is. Me or it.
>
I've had a similar experience recently. I was using LTS (5.15) due to
old, no longer supported Nvidia video card, when I switched to nouveau I
tried 6.0.x but no go, either USB3 or USB2 where working, but not both.
After much fiddling with .config I ended up booting the PC from USB with
a recent, working binary distribution - Ubuntu 22.04 - and compared its
.config with mine, and found out the problem was in one of the kernel
boot parameters, not in the .config!

If you find the binary distribution kernel works, lsmod will tell you
which modules are actually used on your machine so you can pick just
those in your config. For the .config comparison, meld works just fine.

raffaele

On 11/11/2022 08:25, Dale wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> I been stuck on gentoo-sources 5.14.15 for a while.  I tried upgrading
> to I think 5.16 and then more recently 5.18.
If you've been using 5.14 until now, it would appear to me you're the
target audience of the LTS kernels. 5.15 is the latest LTS kernel. Those
kernels are maintained with bugfixes and backports for at least 2 years.

The next LTS will probably be 6.1, so if you update to that, stick to it
for the next 2 years and then update to whatever is the latest LTS then.

Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 11/11/2022 08:25, Dale wrote:
>> Howdy,
>>
>> I been stuck on gentoo-sources 5.14.15 for a while.  I tried upgrading
>> to I think 5.16 and then more recently 5.18.
> If you've been using 5.14 until now, it would appear to me you're the
> target audience of the LTS kernels. 5.15 is the latest LTS kernel.
> Those kernels are maintained with bugfixes and backports for at least
> 2 years.
>
> The next LTS will probably be 6.1, so if you update to that, stick to
> it for the next 2 years and then update to whatever is the latest LTS
> then.
>
>
>


I don't target LTS, I just rarely reboot.  My system runs 24/7.  I watch
TV from it plus do all the other things, check emails, look for info,
buy things etc etc.  Usually, I reboot when I lose power for more than a
couple minutes.  Where I live, if the power fails for more than 30
seconds or so, it's gonna be out longer than my UPS will last.  My UPS
mostly is to protect from those short blinks etc.  Anyway.  Recently, I
been shutting down when I move hard drives physically.  I put in a new
drive, get it set up, transfer data and such.  Once that is done, I
shutdown and physically move the drive to its permanent location. 
Lately, I'm having to use 5 1/4" spots and a adapter.  I'm out of 3.5"
spots. 

Where does one go for a list of the LTS kernels?  Since I reboot so
rarely, what not use one of them??  Of course, the kernel I have in use
now has long uptimes so it is sort of LTS for this rig anyway.  ;-)

Dale

:-)  :-) 

> Where does one go for a list of the LTS kernels? Since I reboot so
> rarely, what not use one of them?? Of course, the kernel I have in use
> now has long uptimes so it is sort of LTS for this rig anyway. ;-)
>
> Dale
>
> :-) :-)

https://www.kernel.org/

On 12/11/2022 18:22, Dale wrote:
> Where does one go for a list of the LTS kernels?  Since I reboot so
> rarely, what not use one of them??  Of course, the kernel I have in use
> now has long uptimes so it is sort of LTS for this rig anyway.

Do you REALLY want an LTS kernel? Sounds like you don't. You need to
update them just as much as any other kernel.

The point of an LTS kernel is it supposed to NOT receive feature
updates, just bug fixes. Given that Artificial Stupidity bots regularly
try to apply updates to stable kernels, is it worth restricting yourself
to old kernels? Especially when it's not unknown for a bot to try to
backport a patch from kernel X+2, when it depends on a patch from X+1
that hasn't been backported, and anybody using that code finds their
"stable" kernel blowing up in their face.

The idea behind stable kernels is great. The implementation leaves a lot
to be desired and, as always, the reason is not enough manpower.

Cheers,
Wol

On 12/11/2022 21:13, Wol wrote:
> On 12/11/2022 18:22, Dale wrote:
>> Where does one go for a list of the LTS kernels?  Since I reboot so
>> rarely, what not use one of them??  Of course, the kernel I have in use
>> now has long uptimes so it is sort of LTS for this rig anyway.
>
> Do you REALLY want an LTS kernel? Sounds like you don't. You need to
> update them just as much as any other kernel.
>
> The point of an LTS kernel is it supposed to NOT receive feature
> updates, just bug fixes. Given that Artificial Stupidity bots regularly
> try to apply updates to stable kernels, is it worth restricting yourself
>  to old kernels? Especially when it's not unknown for a bot to try to
> backport a patch from kernel X+2, when it depends on a patch from X+1
> that hasn't been backported, and anybody using that code finds their
> "stable" kernel blowing up in their face.
>
> The idea behind stable kernels is great. The implementation leaves a lot
> to be desired and, as always, the reason is not enough manpower.

wat

On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 12:13 PM Wol <antlists@youngman.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On 12/11/2022 18:22, Dale wrote:
> > Where does one go for a list of the LTS kernels? Since I reboot so
> > rarely, what not use one of them?? Of course, the kernel I have in use
> > now has long uptimes so it is sort of LTS for this rig anyway.
>
> Do you REALLY want an LTS kernel? Sounds like you don't. You need to
> update them just as much as any other kernel.
>
> The point of an LTS kernel is it supposed to NOT receive feature
> updates, just bug fixes. Given that Artificial Stupidity bots regularly
> try to apply updates to stable kernels, is it worth restricting yourself
> to old kernels? Especially when it's not unknown for a bot to try to
> backport a patch from kernel X+2, when it depends on a patch from X+1
> that hasn't been backported, and anybody using that code finds their
> "stable" kernel blowing up in their face.
>
> The idea behind stable kernels is great. The implementation leaves a lot
> to be desired and, as always, the reason is not enough manpower.
>
> Cheers,
> Wol

Wol,
While I don't completely disagree with your technical points I
really don't think your assessment of the purpose of a LTS kernel
is wide ranging enough.

I do agree that from what I know of Dale's usage he probably
doesn't NEED a long term support kernel, but he may be better
off with one.

If you are user of apps you pay for - in my case Mixbus - an paid
version of Ardour - and PixInsight then you are not going to get
much support if you're off in the weeds running Gentoo and/or
leading edge kernels. I run Kubuntu now, but not because I think
it's a better distro, but because I get support. Harrison does all
the dirty work on the audio stack and Pleiades Astro basically
says you're on your own running unless you are on just a couple of
distros. They were no help when I ran Gentoo. They are great
under Kubuntu.

An additional point is that if Dale limits himself to an LTS
kernel then he doesn't have to worry about changes to his
tool chain. I'm just waiting for the day that Rust becomes
a driving conversation point on this list. I don't think Dale
wants or needs to be involved in that.

Anyway, just my point of view.

Best wishes,
Mark

On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 2:13 PM Wol <antlists@youngman.org.uk> wrote:
>
> The idea behind stable kernels is great. The implementation leaves a lot
> to be desired and, as always, the reason is not enough manpower.
>

Two things: first, LTS kernels aren't the same as stable kernels.
Dale has been running stable kernels, and gentoo-sources kernels are
all stable kernels.

Second, I've been running LTS kernels for years without issue. I got
into them due to running zfs/btrfs/nvidia. ZFS and nvidia are out of
tree modules, and they tend to lag in support for the latest stable
branches, so it is a constant battle if you want to run stable. If
you run LTS they just work. When I was running btrfs I wanted to
stick to LTS mainly because btrfs was constantly breaking things in
new releases, which like every other subsystem are introduced in new
branches. That was a while ago and maybe btrfs is more stable today.
If you run anything out of tree though LTS is a much easier target.

Aside from that, new kernel options are almost never added within LTS
branch releases, so I just run make oldconfig and I'm done. You do
get the rare change, and it is very easy to manage those.

The downside is if you want some new kernel feature you won't get it,
and you might need to update for support for new chipsets/CPUs if
you're upgrading. That isn't a big deal to manage as I don't do it
often.

I can't remember the last time an LTS kernel blew up on me, but I
never rush out to update a kernel the day it is released.
Occassionally I do see a regression fixed and it tends to happen
fairly quickly.

All that said, it would be nice if the kernel had more of a QA
process. I think the kernel has basically deferred all of that to
distros, which means by running an upstream kernel I get none of it.
The upstream kernel config defaults are also less than ideal, which is
something distros also manage.

--
Rich

Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 12:13 PM Wol <antlists@youngman.org.uk
> <mailto:antlists@youngman.org.uk>> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/11/2022 18:22, Dale wrote:
> > > Where does one go for a list of the LTS kernels?  Since I reboot so
> > > rarely, what not use one of them??  Of course, the kernel I have
> in use
> > > now has long uptimes so it is sort of LTS for this rig anyway.
> >
> > Do you REALLY want an LTS kernel? Sounds like you don't. You need to
> > update them just as much as any other kernel.
> >
> > The point of an LTS kernel is it supposed to NOT receive feature
> > updates, just bug fixes. Given that Artificial Stupidity bots regularly
> > try to apply updates to stable kernels, is it worth restricting yourself
> >   to old kernels? Especially when it's not unknown for a bot to try to
> > backport a patch from kernel X+2, when it depends on a patch from X+1
> > that hasn't been backported, and anybody using that code finds their
> > "stable" kernel blowing up in their face.
> >
> > The idea behind stable kernels is great. The implementation leaves a lot
> > to be desired and, as always, the reason is not enough manpower.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Wol
>
> Wol,
>    While I don't completely disagree with your technical points I
> really don't think your assessment of the purpose of a LTS kernel
> is wide ranging enough. 
>
>    I do agree that from what I know of Dale's usage he probably 
> doesn't NEED a long term support kernel, but he may be better 
> off with one.
>
>    If you are user of apps you pay for - in my case Mixbus - an paid
> version of Ardour - and PixInsight then you are not going to get 
> much support if you're off in the weeds running Gentoo and/or
> leading edge kernels. I run Kubuntu now, but not because I think
> it's a better distro, but because I get support. Harrison does all
> the dirty work on the audio stack and Pleiades Astro basically
> says you're on your own running unless you are on just a couple of
> distros. They were no help when I ran Gentoo. They are great 
> under Kubuntu.
>
>    An additional point is that if Dale limits himself to an LTS 
> kernel then he doesn't have to worry about changes to his
> tool chain. I'm just waiting for the day that Rust becomes
> a driving conversation point on this list. I don't think Dale 
> wants or needs to be involved in that.
>
>    Anyway, just my point of view.
>
> Best wishes,
> Mark


Usually, I try to update about once a year.  I don't change hardware
much.  I do plan to get a PCI SATA card with more ports later on but
still, I don't change hardware a whole lot.  Maybe a LTS isn't for me. 
I was just curious if I would benefit from using one since I don't
upgrade much and the kernels I run, run for months without problems.  So
to me, they are rock stable.  This is from uprecords, just the first
seven entries. 

1   303 days, 11:46:23 | Linux 4.5.2-gentoo        Sat Jul 29 23:20:27 2017
2   227 days, 22:10:30 | Linux 5.6.7-gentoo        Wed Oct 28 13:59:36 2020
3   200 days, 06:51:46 | Linux 4.18.12-gentoo      Sat Jan 12 03:42:55 2019
4   193 days, 09:28:37 | Linux 3.5.3-gentoo        Sat Sep 22 07:50:38 2012
5   184 days, 15:47:57 | Linux 3.18.7-gentoo       Tue Dec 15 21:53:59 2015
6   166 days, 20:47:12 | Linux 5.6.7-gentoo        Thu May 14 00:47:09 2020
7   147 days, 10:32:02 | Linux 5.14.15-gentoo      Sun Feb 13 01:09:41 2022

My current kernel is on the bottom.  With hard drive changes, I been
rebooting more often than usual.  Still, 147 days is pretty stable.  :-D

It was just a thought.  Maybe not even a good one.  ;-)

Dale

:-)  :-) 

On 12/11/2022 23:37, Dale wrote:
> Usually, I try to update about once a year.  I don't change hardware
> much.

The main reason I suggested LTS is because that, *when* you decide to do
a @world update, you will get the latest LTS of the same main version
you're already using. For example you'll go from 5.15.20 to 5.15.78. And
that means you won't have to bother with an array of endless "make
oldconfig" questions. There'll be like one or two at most, which is
trivial to deal with.

I've been using LTS kernels for years now, and I never looked back.
"make oldconfig" usually doesn't say anything, making it a ridiculously
fast and no-brainer update, and yet I get the latest bugfixes and
security fixes.

It just works :-)

Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 12/11/2022 23:37, Dale wrote:
>> Usually, I try to update about once a year.  I don't change hardware
>> much.
>
> The main reason I suggested LTS is because that, *when* you decide to
> do a @world update, you will get the latest LTS of the same main
> version you're already using. For example you'll go from 5.15.20 to
> 5.15.78. And that means you won't have to bother with an array of
> endless "make oldconfig" questions. There'll be like one or two at
> most, which is trivial to deal with.
>
> I've been using LTS kernels for years now, and I never looked back.
> "make oldconfig" usually doesn't say anything, making it a
> ridiculously fast and no-brainer update, and yet I get the latest
> bugfixes and security fixes.
>
> It just works :-)
>
>
>


Thing is, I may go a year, sometimes more, without updating the kernel. 
If I rebooted often, I could see using a LTS kernel.  If a kernel can
run for months with no problems, it's stable enough for me.  Plus my
hardware works.

I have even built a kernel but never actually booted it.  By the time I
get around to rebooting, I've had to build another kernel.  I generally
always work from a known stable config tho.  The only reason I wouldn't
is if I build a new system and have to start from scratch.  I've also
had times when I had to update because my video drivers wouldn't build
with a older kernel version that I'm running.  That doesn't happen to
often but I recall running into that at least once. 

Either way, biggest question was if there was some known breakage
between my old version and a newer version.  Maybe the one I tried just
had some weird problem that only affected me or I just missed something
during the oldconfig.  I wish I could recall the error.  Who knows on
that. 

Thanks.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

On Monday, 14 November 2022 21:05:57 GMT Dale wrote:

> Thing is, I may go a year, sometimes more, without updating the kernel.
> If I rebooted often, I could see using a LTS kernel. If a kernel can
> run for months with no problems, it's stable enough for me. Plus my
> hardware works.

Keeping the same kernel running for long periods can leave you exposed to
security vulnerabilities. Either stable or LTS kernels will be similarly
exposed, if their latest backported versions are not booted with. I
appreciate you're not running a public server so your profile is not as much
at risk, but bad code in some application which hasn't been patched up could
still leave you exposed.


> I have even built a kernel but never actually booted it. By the time I
> get around to rebooting, I've had to build another kernel. I generally
> always work from a known stable config tho. The only reason I wouldn't
> is if I build a new system and have to start from scratch. I've also
> had times when I had to update because my video drivers wouldn't build
> with a older kernel version that I'm running. That doesn't happen to
> often but I recall running into that at least once.

Shutting down your desktop applications and rebooting with a new kernel takes
no longer than a couple of minutes. I mean even busy bank customer web
portals have planned downtime.


> Either way, biggest question was if there was some known breakage
> between my old version and a newer version. Maybe the one I tried just
> had some weird problem that only affected me or I just missed something
> during the oldconfig. I wish I could recall the error. Who knows on
> that.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Dale
>
> :-) :-)

Did you diff your current good kernel .config and the new failed to boot
kernel .config, to find out what options/modules have changed. Besides any
booting errors, this could point you to something which was missed in the new
kernel, or perhaps shouldn't have been configured. That's how I go about
finding the cause of a non-booting kernel in the rare occasions I end up with
a lemon.

On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 2:06 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > On 12/11/2022 23:37, Dale wrote:
> >> Usually, I try to update about once a year. I don't change hardware
> >> much.
> >
> > The main reason I suggested LTS is because that, *when* you decide to
> > do a @world update, you will get the latest LTS of the same main
> > version you're already using. For example you'll go from 5.15.20 to
> > 5.15.78. And that means you won't have to bother with an array of
> > endless "make oldconfig" questions. There'll be like one or two at
> > most, which is trivial to deal with.
> >
> > I've been using LTS kernels for years now, and I never looked back.
> > "make oldconfig" usually doesn't say anything, making it a
> > ridiculously fast and no-brainer update, and yet I get the latest
> > bugfixes and security fixes.
> >
> > It just works :-)
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Thing is, I may go a year, sometimes more, without updating the kernel.
> If I rebooted often, I could see using a LTS kernel. If a kernel can
> run for months with no problems, it's stable enough for me. Plus my
> hardware works.
>
> I have even built a kernel but never actually booted it. By the time I
> get around to rebooting, I've had to build another kernel. I generally
> always work from a known stable config tho. The only reason I wouldn't
> is if I build a new system and have to start from scratch. I've also
> had times when I had to update because my video drivers wouldn't build
> with a older kernel version that I'm running. That doesn't happen to
> often but I recall running into that at least once.
>
> Either way, biggest question was if there was some known breakage
> between my old version and a newer version. Maybe the one I tried just
> had some weird problem that only affected me or I just missed something
> during the oldconfig. I wish I could recall the error. Who knows on
> that.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Dale
>
> :-) :-)
>
>

Dale,
While I completely understand your 'reboot once a year' POV, I think
you might *possibly* be missing the point Nikos and others are making.

If you are on 5.14.XX you aren't currently using a LTS kernel. The
LTS kernels would be the 5.10 and 5.15 series, according to kernel.org.

If you don't CARE what kernel you are running then why not build
5.15.78 which is currently the most recent LTS kernel. If there are
updates to that series for bug & security fixes then once you have
built 5.15.78 (WHETHER YOU RUN IT OR NOT) then further
updates to that series won't be a big deal and probably don't even
require much of a config change or a tool chain change. It WILL
be easy.

You would move forward going from 5.14.15 to 5.15.78. If
you don't NEED something in 6.0.5 or 6.0.8 then why bother?

Once you have 5.15.78 built and installed it's there if you
reboot. If you don't reboot then you'll go on building 5.15
kernels until some newer LTS kernel is named.

It is truly an easy way to manage the kernel part of
running Linux.

Good luck,
Mark

On 14/11/2022 21:44, Michael wrote:
> Shutting down your desktop applications and rebooting with a new kernel takes
> no longer than a couple of minutes. I mean even busy bank customer web
> portals have planned downtime.


There's a lot more to it than that ...

The reason I don't run new kernels all the time, is that finding the
time to actually copy the old config, make, make modules, make install,
fix grub, sort out problems, reboot, is actually quite hard.

It's not just a few minutes ...

Cheers,
Wol