older kernel for 10.2 [solved]

[solarian]

Hi there!

 

I tried 10.2rc2 some weeks ago, but my VMware still didn't support the new 2.6.11 kernel (with all the patches applied), so I returned to 10.1. And though my 10.1 installation is quite up-to-date (as software), some of the new 10.2 features are quite tempting.

 

So my question is, can I install the "old" 2.6.8 kernel on 10.2 with no worries about some stability issues arising? This is not a test box and I have to do real work with important data on it, so experimenting is not an option at this moment, because I already hear the deadlines coming in.

 

When VMware starts supporting the new .11 kernel, I'll just do a switch in LILO with no need to reinstall the system.

 

The thing is unfortunately I need VMware, so I can't really wait ages for the new kernel to be supported.

 

thanx!

Edited April 20, 2005 by solarian

[iphitus]

Yes, you can run the 2.6.8 kernel on your Mandrake 10.2 install without problems.

[adamw]

Well, I'm not entirely sure some stuff would be trouble free (especially udev / dbus / hal) but it can't hurt to try. :)

[solarian]

it can't hurt to try

ok, I'll put my money on your words that it can't hurt

or..

[iphitus]

hal+dbus are not dependent on any kernel version, heckthey'd probly run on 2.4. They arent dependent on udev. Though hal might need sysfs which i think is a 2.6 thing.... but thats been in 2.6 all along....

 

udev requires a 2.6 kernel, im not sure which one, but i am pretty sure that 2.6.8 is safe. anyway, didnt the last mandrake release use udev too?

 

and also, when you add a new kernel, dont remove the old one, have them both in lilo. then it definitely wont hurt to try :)

Edited April 20, 2005 by iphitus

[adamw]

iphitus: all entirely true. in theory. :)

 

in practice, I have seen issues caused by certain versions of udev (etc) mixed with certain kernel releases, and I tend to find it's best to stick with a known-good combination. 10.1 did use udev, sure, but it used a version of udev concurrent with the kernel from 10.1 and tested to work with it. The udev etc. subsystem we ship in 2005 has been built alongside the kernel shipped in 2005 and tested to work with that kernel, not with an older one.

[solarian]

what issues? anything that can not be fixed with a reboot to the "right" kernel?

[adamw]

No, nothing that bad, just small stuff.

[solarian]

oh ok, thanx!

[iphitus]

adamw, udev is independent of kernel version. it's not '''built against''' a kernel as you say.

 

my fallback kernel is a 2.6.9 based kernel and has worked with every version of udev to date.

 

the kernel doesnt even know udev exists. udev gets it's information from hotplug events and /sys. /sys was implemented within 2.5 afaik, and will not undergo any big changes during 2.6.

 

Mandrake still ships with 2.4 kernels no? if it does then it must also have devfs, in which case, if udev fails, it will fall back to devfs. or at least, that's how Arch does it.

[adamw]

I don't see anywhere that I used the words 'built against' in this thread. I was particularly careful not to use them, in fact.

 

We still have a 2.4 kernel available, yes. There's no automatic fallback to devfs, though, if udev doesn't work you fallback on a static /dev tree I think. I don't think you could have an automatic devfs fallback as whether devfs is started is controlled by a kernel parameter; if that kernel parameter is set, udev won't start up, if it's not set, there's no way to get devfs to mount even if udev turns out not to work, as by that point you're well past the boot parameter part of starting up. I guess when you install the 2.4 kernel the lilo.conf entry that's created automatically includes devfs=mount, but I'm not going to bother installing it to find out...

[iphitus]

I don't see anywhere that I used the words 'built against' in this thread. I was particularly careful not to use them, in fact.

 

We still have a 2.4 kernel available, yes. There's no automatic fallback to devfs, though, if udev doesn't work you fallback on a static /dev tree I think. I don't think you could have an automatic devfs fallback as whether devfs is started is controlled by a kernel parameter; if that kernel parameter is set, udev won't start up, if it's not set, there's no way to get devfs to mount even if udev turns out not to work, as by that point you're well past the boot parameter part of starting up. I guess when you install the 2.4 kernel the lilo.conf entry that's created automatically includes devfs=mount, but I'm not going to bother installing it to find out...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

well, you used the words "built alongside" which almost implies built against :)

 

And you're right, Mandrake and Arch wont fall back to devfs, they fall back to a static dev. Even then, that'll work :) For a 2.4 kernel devfs=mount is almost implied.