On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Martin Steigerwald <mar...@lichtvoll.de> wrote: > Am Montag, 12. September 2016, 23:21:09 CEST schrieb Pasi Kärkkäinen: >> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:57:17PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: >> > Am Montag, 12. September 2016, 18:27:47 CEST schrieb David Sterba: >> > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 04:27:14PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: >> > > > > I therefore would like to propose that some sort of feature / >> > > > > stability >> > > > > matrix for the latest kernel is added to the wiki preferably >> > > > > somewhere >> > > > > where it is easy to find. It would be nice to archive old matrix'es >> > > > > as >> > > > > well in case someone runs on a bit older kernel (we who use Debian >> > > > > tend >> > > > > to like older kernels). In my opinion it would make things bit >> > > > > easier >> > > > > and perhaps a bit less scary too. Remember if you get bitten badly >> > > > > once >> > > > > you tend to stay away from from it all just in case, if you on the >> > > > > other >> > > > > hand know what bites you can safely pet the fluffy end instead :) >> > > > >> > > > Somebody has put that table on the wiki, so it's a good starting >> > > > point. >> > > > I'm not sure we can fit everything into one table, some combinations >> > > > do >> > > > not bring new information and we'd need n-dimensional matrix to get >> > > > the >> > > > whole picture. >> > > >> > > https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status >> > >> > Great. >> > >> > I made to minor adaption. I added a link to the Status page to my warning >> > in before the kernel log by feature page. And I also mentioned that at >> > the time the page was last updated the latest kernel version was 4.7. >> > Yes, thats some extra work to update the kernel version, but I think its >> > beneficial to explicitely mention the kernel version the page talks >> > about. Everyone who updates the page can update the version within a >> > second. >> >> Hmm.. that will still leave people wondering "but I'm running Linux 4.4, not >> 4.7, I wonder what the status of feature X is.." >> >> Should we also add a column for kernel version, so we can add "feature X is >> known to be OK on Linux 3.18 and later".. ? Or add those to "notes" field, >> where applicable? > > That was my initial idea, and it may be better than a generic kernel version > for all features. Even if we fill in 4.7 for any of the features that are > known to work okay for the table. > > For RAID 1 I am willing to say it works stable since kernel 3.14, as this was > the kernel I used when I switched /home and / to Dual SSD RAID 1 on this > ThinkPad T520.
Just to cut yourself some slack, you could skip 3.14 because it's EOL now, and just go from 4.4. -- Chris Murphy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
