On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 12:52:08PM -0300, Javier Romero wrote:
Hi Ken,Yes, no, maybe. I can't say what will work (process) for you, it
Thank you for your answer.
Will it be better to work with linux-next Kernel for testing?
Regards.
depends in part on what you want to test, and how flakey that is at
any particular time.
The -next kernels are transient - what is there today might be
removed tomorrow, what is in linus's -rc kernels (and in point
releases of stable kernels) usually remains unless somebody finds a
showstopper bug.
If you are testing -next, expect to find more problems : in theory
everything which gets to Linus's tree has been through an amount of
testing before he applies it.
Most people have limited time to test kernels. Build farms usually
run boot tests on all of these kernels, but do very little testing
of whether or not any particular use is worse than before.
For any of these, expect problems to arise when least convenient to
you. I try to test linus's -rc kernels on my own hardware,
typically not until at least -rc2, and then once or twice after
that.
On occasion I test patchsets which look interesting, usually I end
up wishing I had not bothered (they claim to help things, but do
little or nothing for my machines).
The other problem with testing, when you do find a real issue, is
making sure it is repeatable so that you can bisect reliably.
In short, test what interests you. It's like writing or fixing
code for the kernel as a hobby - work on what matters to you.
Getting enough experience and visibility to become paid to code is a
different thing entirely, I can't advise on that.
So, for me it is just a hobby (with a side order of "hope this new
release doesn't break anything for me").
If you are not being paid for it, try to enjoy it.
Äen