Item — HN Reader

> The only Fedora users who will have the 6.3 kernel series on their systems are those who willingly and intentionally enable the updates-testing repository.

1. People compile released kernels found on kernel.org. I do. 2. Multiple distros release kernel.org kernel releases quite fast including Arch and Gentoo. There's also a Ubuntu PPA with the mainline kernel many people, who I personally know, use. 3. Where's the line between "stable" and unstable/beta/whatever? Who draws it? What about "stable" LTS kernel regressions which have been aplenty so far?

Also please refer to this comment https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/phoronix/latest-phoron...

because this argument that "LTS or distro kernels are stable" has never been true. It's been nothing but a very bad myth.

> a hardware or software RAID configuration.

Again, there's a person without raid in the comments. Could you please drop it and make it look like those people are somehow extremely unlucky and everyone else is safe?

2 comments

> 1. People compile released kernels found on kernel.org. I do. 2. Multiple distros release kernel.org kernel releases quite fast including Arch and Gentoo. There's also a Ubuntu PPA with the mainline kernel many people, who I personally know, use.

To repeat myself, the is the _Red Hat Bugzilla bug tracker for Fedora_. While what you say is true, that's outside the context of what the OP and I are saying, and the statement in the ticket. As seen in the ticket, users of other distros and kernel configs have made comments reporting their experience with the 6.3 series, but that is besides the point I was making above.

Anyone performing their own builds (even on Fedora) are more than welcome to contribute and test, but that's outside the bounds of the Fedora QA process.

> Again, there's a person without raid in the comments. Could you please drop it and make it look like those people are somehow extremely unlucky and everyone else is safe?

I'm not the original thread starter, but I read through the ticket earlier and unless I misinterpreted one of the comments or missed something in the wall of text that is RHBZ, I didn't see a RAID-less reporter.

> I didn't see a RAID-less reporter.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208553#c24 says "no hardware RAID", which was the original context of the claims about RAID versus no RAID.

Also reportedly https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin... fixes it, with the hypothesis being sometimes instead of livelocking, they return an incorrect mapping to be written out.

> says "no hardware RAID", which was the original context of the claims about RAID versus no RAID.

That's fair, but also the reason why I specified hardware and software RAID in my prior comment. Though at this point I think we're getting to be overly pedantic :D

Looks like 6.3.4 was published with that fix in place. Hopefully this issue can be moved on from!

> this argument that "LTS or distro kernels are stable" has never been true. It's been nothing but a very bad myth.

It might have some mythical aspects, but if 10 000 people have run a certain kernel/FS combination without issue for a few months - you can reasonably expect that particular set of binary artifacts to work well if you install/run them in the same way.

Now, if you change the sources, adjust the configs and compile flags - you can be less certain everything will work. That doesn't mean kernel.org kernels are unstable - it just means change drives risk (often justifiable risk).