kernel updates

[Member greyowl]

Helpful

Up

0

::

@Robin

I tried the 4.19.184 kernel on my Dell D610 32bit laptop.
Seems about the same as 4.9.264 in terms of speed.
However, 4.19.184 resulted in no sound with SeaMonkey.
So, back to 4.9.264 which works well.

Thanks for sharing your experience, though.

Dell Latitude D620 laptop with antiX 22 (64 bit)

[Member oops]

Helpful

Up

0

::

About the antiX kernel (versus .conf MX kernel), some suggestions:

1-)# Linux/x86 5.10.27-antix.1 Kernel Configuration

2-)# Linux/x86 5.10.28 Kernel Configuration
CONFIG_BUILD_SALT=”5.10.0-6mx-amd64″

ex: 1-) antix 5.10.27 versus 2-) MX5.10.6(28)
—–
For fast decompression decompression ZSTD is probably better than xz now
1-) CONFIG_KERNEL_XZ=y idem for 2-)
——-
For kernel hardening:
1
# CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_BASE is not set
CONFIG_PHYSICAL_ALIGN=0x1000000

2
CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_BASE=y
CONFIG_X86_NEED_RELOCS=y
CONFIG_PHYSICAL_ALIGN=0x200000
CONFIG_DYNAMIC_MEMORY_LAYOUT=y
CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_MEMORY=y
CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_MEMORY_PHYSICAL_PADDING=0xa
——-
To consume less energy 250HZ is enough (for desktops)
1-) CONFIG_HZ=1000 2-) CONFIG_HZ=250

[Anonymous]

Helpful

Up

0

::

About the antiX kernel (versus .conf MX kernel)
[..]
[..]
To consume less energy 250HZ is enough (for desktops)
1-) CONFIG_HZ=1000 2-) CONFIG_HZ=250

but BOTH the MX and antiX kernels are, intentionally, set to 1000

I just re-researched this 4 days ago and reposted to antixforum
https://www.antixforum.com/forums/topic/my-antix-fu-is-not-strong/page/3/#post-57292

https://forum.mxlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=49339

stevo:
MX kernel is based on the upstream Debian kernel and backported by MX
[..]
The only change I make to the Debian config is to boost the kernel context switch frequency
from 250 Hz to 1000 (Antix has the same setting). Debian uses 250, which is better for server use,
but not so good for desktops.

[Member oops]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Anonymous wrote:

…
but BOTH the MX and antiX kernels are, intentionally, set to 1000

Not this one (it is 250HZ):
# Linux/x86 5.10.28 Kernel Configuration
CONFIG_BUILD_SALT=”5.10.0-6mx-amd64″

Edit: and also an other main difference
1
# CONFIG_KEXEC_SIG is not set
# CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP is not set
CONFIG_KEXEC_JUMP=y

2
CONFIG_KEXEC_SIG=y
# CONFIG_KEXEC_SIG_FORCE is not set
CONFIG_KEXEC_BZIMAGE_VERIFY_SIG=y
CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP=y
# CONFIG_KEXEC_JUMP is not set

• This reply was modified 2 years ago by oops.

[Anonymous]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Thanks for that news, oops, and for suggesting the additional tweaks.

[Member mythcat]

Helpful

Up

0

::

my hardware for antiX:

mythcat@mythcat:~
$ inxi -zfrSG
System:
  Host: mythcat Kernel: 4.9.235-antix.1-amd64-smp x86_64 bits: 64 
  Desktop: IceWM 2.2.1 
  Distro: antiX-19.3_x64-base Manolis Glezos 14 October 2020 
CPU:
  Topology: Single Core model: Intel Celeron 560 bits: 64 type: MCP 
  L2 cache: 1024 KiB 
  Speed: 2128 MHz min/max: N/A Core speed (MHz): 1: 2128 
  Flags: acpi aperfmperf apic arch_perfmon bts clflush cmov constant_tsc 
  cx16 cx8 de ds_cpl dtes64 dtherm dts fpu fxsr kaiser lahf_lm lm mca mce 
  mmx monitor msr mtrr nopl nx pae pat pbe pdcm pebs pge pni pse pse36 
  rep_good sep ss sse sse2 ssse3 syscall tm tm2 tsc vme xtpr 
Graphics:
  Device-1: Intel Mobile GM965/GL960 Integrated Graphics driver: i915 
  v: kernel 
  Display: x11 server: X.Org 1.20.4 driver: intel resolution: 1280x800~60Hz 
  OpenGL: renderer: Mesa DRI Intel 965GM v: 2.1 Mesa 18.3.6 
Repos:
  Active apt repos in: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/antix.list 
  1: deb http://mirrors.rit.edu/mxlinux/mx-packages/antix/buster buster main nonfree nosystemd
  Active apt repos in: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/buster-backports.list 
  1: deb http://deb.debian.org/debian buster-backports main contrib non-free
  Active apt repos in: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/debian-stable-updates.list 
  1: deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ buster-updates main contrib non-free
  Active apt repos in: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/debian.list 
  1: deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ buster main contrib non-free
  2: deb http://security.debian.org/ buster/updates main contrib non-free
  No active apt repos in: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/onion.list 
  No active apt repos in: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/various.list 

[Member Wallon]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Hello,

I have upgraded my laptop from kernel 4.9.261 to new version 4.9.264 with the Antix Package Installer.
But in the Antix Package Installer, it’s an other number. It’s 4.9.0.264 for the new version.
Please find attached my screenshot.
Now, I have a bug when I start Antix. It starts automatically with the 4.9.261 kernel.

I have this in the Grup options;
* Antix 19.3 Linux 4.9.261-antix.1-amd64-smp
Antix 19.3 Linux 4.9.240-antix.1-amd64-smp
Antix 19.3 Linux 4.9.235-antix.1-amd64-smp
Antix 19.3 Linux 4.9.0.264-antix.1-amd64-smp

If I choose the kernel 4.9.0.264 at starting and if I restart the laptop, the kernel 4.9.261 comes back.
I would like to delete the “0” in the numbering and put the kernel 4.9.264 on top of the list but I don’t know how to do this.
Apparently, it’s the same problem with the kernel 4.4.0.264, there is also a “0” in the numbering.
Thank you in advance for your support.
Best regards,
Wallon

• This reply was modified 2 years ago by Wallon.

Attachments:

1. 

   kernel-4-9-0-264.jpg
   

[Member Xecure]

Helpful

Up

0

::

https://antixlinux.com/new-builds-of-4-4-and-4-9-kernels/

There is no “delete the 0”. Use the advanced options in GRUB to boot into the 4.9.0-264 kernel, and then remove ALL previous 4.9 kernels using synaptic or cli-aptiX

antiX Live system enthusiast.
General Live Boot Parameters for antiX.

[Member greyowl]

Helpful

Up

0

::

I tried to post and quote Xecure and got an error message–see attached message

• This reply was modified 2 years ago by greyowl.

Attachments:

1. 

   Antix-error.jpg
   

2. 

   Antix-error-1.jpg
   

Dell Latitude D620 laptop with antiX 22 (64 bit)

[Member greyowl]

Helpful

Up

0

::

I am using 4.9.264. I am not getting the libc6 message ‘Your kernel version indicates a revision number of 255 or greater’.

However, would it be best to install 4.9.0-264 and delete the other 4.9 kernels so that I am in tune with the new naming system.

Dell Latitude D620 laptop with antiX 22 (64 bit)

[Member Xecure]

Helpful

Up

0

::

greyowl wrote:

I tried to post and quote Xecure and got an error message–see attached message

The error when quoting an iframe message is because the forum software interprets the iframe code as a user trying to inject code to the forum. When you see a link become a mini quote of the links content, and you want to quote that message, select the part of the message that doesn’t contain the iframe (only the simple text) and click quote. This way you avoid these problems.

greyowl wrote:

However, would it be best to install 4.9.0-264 and delete the other 4.9 kernels so that I am in tune with the new naming system.

You can do this now or wait until next time you see a new kernel update, but I recommend you do this (install the 4.9.0-264 kernel, rebooting, select the kernel in the advanced grub menu and then removing al other 4.9.xxx kernels) as soon as you have free time so you don’t forget and then encounter this issue in a few months in the future.

antiX Live system enthusiast.
General Live Boot Parameters for antiX.

[Member greyowl]

Helpful

Up

0

::

@Xecure

Thank you for the explanation of the error message and the advice on switching to 4.9.0-264 now. I will follow through and be ready for the next kernel update.

Dell Latitude D620 laptop with antiX 22 (64 bit)

[Anonymous]

Helpful

Up

0

::

yeah, I wind up with the wordfence block onscreen too often
;^)

[Member DaveW]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Hi,
Two questions re: The most recent kernel upgrade announcement in this thread, and also in the ‘Announcements’ block at top of the forum opening page (dated 05 Apr 2021).

1. The recommended kernel (in the Announcements block) for Antix 17 is still “4.9.0-240”. I got tired of waiting, and installed 4.9.264 on Antix 17.4, 32 bit system, today. So far, so good. Is there a reason that this is not the recommended kernel for Antix 17?

2. The Announcement block recommends 4.9.0-264 for Antix 19. But the discussion in this thread appears to be about 4.9.264 (missing the ‘zero’). What is the difference between 4.9.0-264 and 4.9.264 (also between 4.9.0-240 and 4.9.240)?

Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Helpful

Up

0

::

https://antixlinux.com/new-builds-of-4-4-and-4-9-kernels/

In both cases, they are essentially identical.
Renumbered with 0- prefix to avoid problems from libc’s inability to recognize version numbers beyond 255.
“[4.9.264] seems fine so far”… until an eventual attempt to update the libc package, which would fail.

[Author]

Posts