[CentOS] Request for good advice to upgrade kernel

Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob at suespammers.org
Tue Mar 21 13:59:44 UTC 2006

Hash: SHA1

On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 02:05:46PM +0100, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> Kari Salovaara wrote:
> > But I've lost some understanding how these kernel versions flow !  I'm 
> > also a little confused of some related answers from some forums and 
> > lists. Questions :
> > - is the kernel version used in CentOS the same as in kernel.org ?
> Yes, the CentOS 2.6.9 *base* kernel (which is the kernel 4.0 shipped
> with) is pretty close to the 2.6.9 kernel from kernel.org plus some
> patches (I don't know how many there were, though).
> kernel 2.6.9-34.EL still is based on kernel.org's 2.6.9 kernel, but has at
> least 700 patches in it (that is added up for all architectures, so your
> i386 kernel doesn't really have 700 patches applied to it). But the
> kernel-API is still the same as in 2.6.9 (later 2.6.x kernels have a
> different one).

And there you are wrong.

I give you the exemple of slmodemd, where you have to change it so it
detects the CentOS kernel as if it were 2.6.10+. Otherwise, it won't
even compile, due to difference on the headers.

> > The other question (very much relates to the later part of previous 
> > question and the need to do kernel compilation at all) :
> > - if I want to compile new kernel using kernel source from kernel.org, 
> > what is the best way regarding to maintain the workability level of 
> > exisisting kenel (see top)?
> You leave the path of binary compatibility to RHEL4.

You might also have serious problems related extended functionality, that
depends on patches applied to the RHEL4 kernel.

In other words: don't do it.


- -- 
Rodrigo Barbosa <rodrigob at suespammers.org>
"Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur"
"Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)

Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)


More information about the CentOS mailing list