Question about the maintenance of OOT RT patches for LTS releases (v12.x and v18.x)

Question about the maintenance of OOT RT patches for LTS releases (v12.x and v18.x)

[Luis Claudio R. Goncalves]

Hello!

The question is simple:

   Should we have somebody maintaining the OOT RT patches for v12.x and v18.x,
   the LTS versions that already have PREEMPT_RT in-tree?

As we still have a few OOT patches, after a while, people using PREEMPT_RT on
those versions may encounter conflicts trying to apply the old patches. And
as those patches are not in-tree, the fixes won't probably be routed via
Stable.

Best regards,
Luis

Re: Question about the maintenance of OOT RT patches for LTS releases (v12.x and v18.x)

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

On 2026-06-22 13:11:59 [-0300], Luis Claudio R. Goncalves wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> The question is simple:
> 
>    Should we have somebody maintaining the OOT RT patches for v12.x and v18.x,
>    the LTS versions that already have PREEMPT_RT in-tree?
> 
> As we still have a few OOT patches, after a while, people using PREEMPT_RT on
> those versions may encounter conflicts trying to apply the old patches. And
> as those patches are not in-tree, the fixes won't probably be routed via
> Stable.

For 6.18, we have:
- 8250 console
- i915
- arm-32
- powerpc

For 6.12, we have additionally
- ktimers thread
- the whole lazy-preempt

So for v6.12 there are bits outstanding which can impact you.
For v6.18 if you are on arm64 then the mainline version is slightly
better than on x86 because on arm64 you might be using the pl011 UART
which has nbcon support since v6.15 while on x86 you almost always have
the 8250 which is not yet with nbcon support in-tree.

These are the missing bits. None of them are essential. If you on x86
and your kernel crashes, it is more likely to see a backtrace with nbcon
driver than without it.

> Best regards,
> Luis

Sebastian

Re: Question about the maintenance of OOT RT patches for LTS releases (v12.x and v18.x)

[Luis Claudio R. Goncalves]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 08:49:44AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2026-06-22 13:11:59 [-0300], Luis Claudio R. Goncalves wrote:
> > Hello!
> > 
> > The question is simple:
> > 
> >    Should we have somebody maintaining the OOT RT patches for v12.x and v18.x,
> >    the LTS versions that already have PREEMPT_RT in-tree?
> > 
> > As we still have a few OOT patches, after a while, people using PREEMPT_RT on
> > those versions may encounter conflicts trying to apply the old patches. And
> > as those patches are not in-tree, the fixes won't probably be routed via
> > Stable.
> 
> For 6.18, we have:
> - 8250 console
> - i915
> - arm-32
> - powerpc
> 
> For 6.12, we have additionally
> - ktimers thread
> - the whole lazy-preempt

I need to correct myself here, our local hero Daniel Wagner is maintaining
the v6.12-rt version. Sorry for that :)

Sebastian, just to make sure I understood your answer, then we don't need
to keep the OOT patches up-to-date for v6.18-rt specifically? My question
came from comments raised on the last two RT maintainers meetings and the
LF RT Board meeting. I just want to have a good answer if somebody else
asks about that. And to volunteer if work is needed.

Best,
Luis
 
> So for v6.12 there are bits outstanding which can impact you.
> For v6.18 if you are on arm64 then the mainline version is slightly
> better than on x86 because on arm64 you might be using the pl011 UART
> which has nbcon support since v6.15 while on x86 you almost always have
> the 8250 which is not yet with nbcon support in-tree.
> 
> These are the missing bits. None of them are essential. If you on x86
> and your kernel crashes, it is more likely to see a backtrace with nbcon
> driver than without it.
> 
> > Best regards,
> > Luis
> 
> Sebastian
> 
---end quoted text---