[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [stable] -longterm kernels (Was: Re: Patch Upstream: iwlwifi: fix skb usage after free)

    On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 04:58:55PM +0200, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
    > BTW, Greg, perhaps -logterm releasing policy should be revised somehow.
    > Currently we have .32, .33, .34, .35 -longterm, what is kind a much. If
    > I could suggest something, would be nice to have longterm chosen
    > versions predictable and constants i.e. one from every 3 kernel
    > releases, like .35, .38, .41 ... . That would make distributions, that
    > try to do release every half year very happy, because they will know
    > what kernel to choose, which will be widely supported and tested.

    Longterm kernels are maintained on a voluntary basis, which explains
    there is no rule. We had 2.6.16, 2.6.27 and now 2.6.32 which were
    initially announced as longterm supported. When Greg announced dropping
    2.6.27, I proposed to take it over because I have some uses for it and
    I know other people who rely on it. Most likely for very similar reasons
    Paul and Andi volunteered to maintain 2.6.34 and 2.6.35 alive.

    I agree it would be much easier for everyone if all longterm kernels were
    announced early. Still there are a lot of users who can't easily upgrade
    for whatever reason and who are happy with someone keeping their kernel
    updated. I tend to consider that Greg's kernels are more "official" than
    other ones, and if some backporting must be done by patch authors, I think
    it should be for these kernels first. Also, .32 is not that far away from
    the 3 other longterm kernels, so when a developer writes a .32 backport,
    chances are that adaptations will not be too hard for the 3 other ones.

    > Also
    > developers will have a bit less work with backporting fixes, as having
    > same bug in n and n-3 release is less probable, than having the same bug
    > in n and n-1.

    While less probable, I'm still amazed by the number of fixes from -master
    that still apply to 2.6.27, and sometimes (but to a less extent) even to
    2.4.37 ! The fact that fixes and regressions span that many kernel versions
    probably is one of the reasons there is demand for longterm kernels.

    Just my 2 cents,

     \ /
      Last update: 2011-05-05 17:19    [W:0.020 / U:42.536 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site