Re: Bumping required kernels to 3.0 for Linux backports ?

[Takashi Iwai]

At Wed, 9 Apr 2014 14:06:13 -0700,
Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 01:52:29PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 01:01:23PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > >> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 11:28:55AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > >> >> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Felix Fietkau <nbd@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> >> > The oldest kernel in OpenWrt that we're still supporting with updates of
> > >> >> > the backports tree is 3.3, so raising the minimum requirement to 3.0 is
> > >> >> > completely fine with me.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> OK note that 3.3 is not listed on kernel.org as supported. I'm fine in
> > >> >> carrying the stuff for those for now but ultimately it'd also be nice
> > >> >> if we didn't even have to test the kernels in between which are not
> > >> >> listed. This does however raise the question of how often a kernel in
> > >> >> between a list of supported kernels gets picked up to be supported
> > >> >> eventually. Greg, Jiri, do you happen to know what the likelyhood of
> > >> >> that can be?
> > >> >
> > >> > I don't know of anything ever getting picked up after I have said it
> > >> > would not be supported anymore.
> > >>
> > >> Great! How soon after a release do you mention whether or not it will
> > >> be supported? Like say, 3.14, which was just released.
> > >
> > > I only mention it around the time that it would normally go end-of-life.
> > >
> > > For example, if 3.13 were to be a release that was going to be "long
> > > term", I would only say something around the normal time I would be no
> > > longer supporting it.  Like in 2-3 weeks from now.
> > >
> > > So for 3.14, I'll not say anything about that until 3.16-rc1 is out,
> > > give or take a week or two.
> > >
> > >> Also, as of late are you aware any distribution picking an unsupported
> > >> kernel for their next choice of kernel?
> > >
> > > Sure, lots do, as they don't line up with my release cycles (I only pick
> > > 1 long term kernel to maintain each year).  Look at the Ubuntu releases
> > > for examples of that.  Also openSUSE and Fedora (although Fedora does
> > > rev their kernel pretty regularly) don't usually line up.  The
> > > "enterprise" distros are different, but even then, they don't always
> > > line up either (which is why Jiri is maintaining 3.12...)
> > >
> > > Hope this helps,
> > 
> > It does! Unless I don't hear any complaints then given that some
> > distributions might choose a kernel in between and given also your
> > great documented story behind the gains on trying to steer folks
> > together on the 'ol 2.6.32 [0] and this now being faded, I'll be
> > bumping backports to only support >= 3.0 soon, but we'll include all
> > the series from 3.0 up to the latest. That should shrink compile /
> > test time / support time on backports to 1/2.
> 
> Why 3.0?  That's not supported by anyone anymore for "new hardware", I'd
> move to 3.2 if you could, as that's the Debian stable release that will
> be maintained for quite some time yet:
> 	https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html

Well, the support for "new hardware" is what backports project itself
does, isn't it?

Besides, SLES11 is still supported, so yes, including 3.0.x would be
helpful.


thanks,

Takashi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/