Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965585AbaDJQ7s (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Apr 2014 12:59:48 -0400 Received: from mail-lb0-f182.google.com ([209.85.217.182]:58826 "EHLO mail-lb0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934663AbaDJQ7q (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Apr 2014 12:59:46 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <53451077.2030102@openwrt.org> <20140409191225.GA10560@kroah.com> <20140409202224.GA12953@kroah.com> <20140409210613.GA14392@kroah.com> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 09:59:24 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: rheyJI5zgU2wdFTbLpdmdNSwr5c Message-ID: Subject: Re: Bumping required kernels to 3.0 for Linux backports ? To: Takashi Iwai Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Felix Fietkau , "backports@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Jiri Slaby , Mauro Carvalho Chehab Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote: > 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. That's two stakeholders for 3.0 -- but nothing is voiced for anything older than that. Today I will rip the older kernels into oblivion. Thanks for all the feedback! Luis -- 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/