Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965508AbaDJHol (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Apr 2014 03:44:41 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:43024 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965019AbaDJHoi (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Apr 2014 03:44:38 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 09:44:35 +0200 Message-ID: From: Takashi Iwai To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Felix Fietkau , "backports@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Jiri Slaby , Mauro Carvalho Chehab Subject: Re: Bumping required kernels to 3.0 for Linux backports ? In-Reply-To: <20140409210613.GA14392@kroah.com> References: <53451077.2030102@openwrt.org> <20140409191225.GA10560@kroah.com> <20140409202224.GA12953@kroah.com> <20140409210613.GA14392@kroah.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL/10.8 Emacs/24.3 (x86_64-suse-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 > > 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 > > >> 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 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/