From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4CFE9991.9090606@domain.hid> Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 21:31:13 +0100 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai-help] Ipipe support for 'longterm' kernel versions List-Id: Help regarding installation and common use of Xenomai List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Henri Roosen Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org Henri Roosen wrote: > Hi all, > > I was pleased to read on the Linux Kernel Mailing List Greg's message > about Linux stable kernel release procedure changes, that the longterm > supported stable kernels will be made more explicit by getting the > 'longterm' name. > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/12/2/388 > > We are embedding Linux in products and therefore those longterm > kernels are very valuable for us. We chose 2.6.32 kernel because of > that a while ago. > > However, unfortunately there is no Ipipe patch that applies cleanly on > the latest 2.6.32.26 stable, nor is there an ARM version. > > It would be great if Xenomai would also recognize this need and would > do some kind of 'long term' support for the Ipipe for the longterm > kernels. I understand maintaining the Ipipe is a lot of work. > Personally I think it would be an option to only support the longterm > kernels... > > What do the Xenomai/Ipipe developers think? Well, 2.6.35 is also a long term version. Maintaining all the long term versions is a lot of work (it takes time to simply validate a patch for every new release). So, we probably can not maintain support for all the long term versions, we would probably have to pick one. Since the I-pipe patch for ARM skips even versions (in order to reduce the time spent issuing I-pipe patches), and since it is more recent, I would rather go for 2.6.35. -- Gilles.