Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Feedback-ID: i78e14604:Fastmail
Date:   Fri, 6 Jan 2023 17:53:10 -0600
From:   Tyler Hicks <code@tyhicks.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de>, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        patches@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        linux@roeck-us.net, shuah@kernel.org, patches@kernelci.org,
        lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, jonathanh@nvidia.com,
        f.fainelli@gmail.com, sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com,
        srw@sladewatkins.net, rwarsow@gmx.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/207] 6.1.4-rc1 review
Message-ID: <Y7i0ZukMa9CX+fzo@sequoia>
References: <20230104160511.905925875@linuxfoundation.org>
 <Y7cmMKUr//oYKWXb@duo.ucw.cz>
 <Y7fGpYyaJWym1BxW@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y7fGpYyaJWym1BxW@kroah.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 2023-01-06 07:58:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 08:34:08PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> > 
> > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.4 release.
> > > There are 207 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> > > to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> > > let me know.
> > 
> > Thank you.
> > 
> > Is it known at this point if 6.1 will became next longterm release? It
> > is not listed as such on https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html
> > . We might want to do some extra testing if it is.
> 
> A kernel can not become "long term" until it would have normally dropped
> off of support.  Right now there are known-regressions in 6.1 still that
> are not resolved.

Hey Greg - A couple questions...

1. Does that mean that you always wait until N+1 is released by Linus
   before declaring N to be an upstream LTS kernel?

   Looking back to last year, v5.16 was released on 2022-01-10 and you
   declared v5.15 as the LTS on 2022-01-16:

    https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/docs/kernel/website.git/commit/?id=c335525958a3424ec0200dc9093d2bbf95032f83

   That one data point lines up but I want to confirm that's the normal
   procedure because I hadn't noticed that pattern until now and I don't
   see it mentioned on the kernel.org Releases page.

2. Do you (or anyone else) happen to have a list of the known
   regressions? I see one specific to linux-6.1.y in the regzbot list:

    https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/regzbot/stable/

   Another reported here (with a potential fix identified):

    https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/CAK8fFZ7cYRkGjUJD2D86G6Jh9YRmP_L+7Ke6CLFSyFmRkoe-Hg@mail.gmail.com/T/#m1b118647969eb0d64de016858506fc2345a0b834

   A more complete list may help all of us currently evaluating v6.1.

> And "extra" testing is always good no matter what kernel branch it is
> happening for, why not always do it?

That's a very good point. I have to admit that we are a bit too
LTS-focused today when it comes to our testing. We have a goal to
improve in that area.

We have been working under the assumption that v6.1 is going to be the
next LTS but, as you point out, we should be iteratively testing each
release just the same. We are currently doing some additional/extra
testing of v6.1 with our Microsoft Linux kernel and will let you know
the results as they come in.

Tyler

> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h