Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030483AbaDJREq (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Apr 2014 13:04:46 -0400 Received: from mail-gw3-out.broadcom.com ([216.31.210.64]:37171 "EHLO mail-gw3-out.broadcom.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030400AbaDJREn (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Apr 2014 13:04:43 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,835,1389772800"; d="scan'208";a="23669053" Message-ID: <5346CF27.3070406@broadcom.com> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 19:04:39 +0200 From: Arend van Spriel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111103 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" CC: Takashi Iwai , Greg Kroah-Hartman , 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 ? References: <53451077.2030102@openwrt.org> <20140409191225.GA10560@kroah.com> <20140409202224.GA12953@kroah.com> <20140409210613.GA14392@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/10/14 18:59, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > 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! Ok, I guess my voice was cracking when I mentioned 2.6.38 as being used over here. I am probably alone in that desert. Regards, Arend > Luis > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe backports" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- 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/