From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98300C433E0 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 18:54:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [205.233.59.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D93C22228 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 18:54:04 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4D93C22228 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linuxfoundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=rnkhOfzewjjEhlilt00btI3BmoEFYhce6QjllpzN3gQ=; b=xxhD1xzE4y1Qe6nP1B0UerXAx 8IfPAvGf6hcgXpuDqwk/TVmq9ID69a7XPHFZ4hEoLhcCc5IorWtIztEJHUeelcz2+H4z3ciQKy1eM iYCHonaCweBtk6DLZXdkazcKwTkDxXRtcIwXqtD5DVEbR9E0S4m1d4H/LTPQLW8BlwphvEyoTu0Ff 18FZEcnd0Ot/PK8SL8TPiINrx807ULId8xfCe67nj1PH/pErHqeIXKPR2xyr/YpLe1+hJUZHHPHc0 7PsQzfsvlAxQwJJjwfcH28utapM5kogbMSoCTsNXyvMOUpdQjUrF8c5yqFEz1j5cajBV28L04fNrK 2dV9QS5UQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=merlin.infradead.org) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1l4TQy-00010F-Mz; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 18:51:24 +0000 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1l4TQv-0000zL-TW for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 18:51:22 +0000 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 499A122A85; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 18:51:20 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1611687080; bh=uiLmzytoHYzuWBm6FnEmmJCjS8V01A7V49S01KF1IQw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Yge6iZFzecARoztg36lMDD943zSQbeiOKBPqHcaPGEOx3JVX5R+w/38oCDshWG7M3 l09y3hlLHWbftvAdpApCPn0y3yjeXrZkSmdpvpNOV8Gbnyn1ltILDQbgvj5zPquyM8 pCDwzhXQBWbEvTNP/ieEsHKWrG5INGkah932mTtU= Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 19:51:18 +0100 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Scott Branden Subject: Re: 5.10 LTS Kernel: 2 or 6 years? Message-ID: References: <8cf503db-ac4c-a546-13c0-aac6da5c073b@broadcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8cf503db-ac4c-a546-13c0-aac6da5c073b@broadcom.com> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20210126_135122_084282_ADCF8456 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 28.48 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: BCM Kernel Feedback , LKML , Linux ARM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:30:16AM -0800, Scott Branden wrote: > Hi Greg, > = > = > On 2021-01-25 11:29 p.m., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:55:11AM -0800, Scott Branden wrote: > >> Hi All, > >> > >> The 5.10 LTS kernel being officially LTS supported for 2 years present= s a problem: > >> why would anyone select a 5.10 kernel with 2 year LTS when 5.4 kernel = has a 6 year LTS. > > Because they want to use all of the latest stuff that 5.10 provides > > them. Don't you want faster and more secure kernels for your devices? > Yes, 5.10 is a more secure and less buggy kernel than 5.4. Great, use it, ship it to your customers and we are all happy. What do you need me for any of this? :) > >> =A0 And AOSP has already declared the use > >> of 5.10 kernel in their Android S and T releases. > > Publically? Where? And is that really the name of the new Android > > releases, I thought they switched to numbers now (hence the naming of > > the current android-common kernel branches, marketing is fun...) > https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/kernel/android-common > Feature and launch kernels provides kernels supported per version. Oh nice, didn't know that. But note, Android kernels do not reflect the lifespan of LTS kernels. If that were the case, I would still be supporting 3.18 as they are doing that at the moment for their devices and customers, and will be doing so for I think another full year. So while Android is nice to see here, remember that is what Google is promising to support for their users. You can do the same thing for your users, what do you need me here for this? You can do the same thing that Google is doing for 3.18 right now, pick the stable fixes from upstream, backport them, test them, and push them out to their users. While Google is a great help to me in the LTS effort, providing huge amounts of resources to enable my life easier with this (i.e. funding Linaro's testing efforts), their promise to their customers/users does not depend on me keeping LTS kernels alive, if I stopped tomorrow their contracts are still in place and they know how to do this work themselves (as is proof with 3.18). So you can provide the same kind of guarantee to support any kernel version for any amount of time to any customer you like, it shouldn't require me to do that work for you, right? > >> Is there some way we could make the LTS support more clear. > >> A 2 year declaration is not LTS any more. > > Not true at all, a "normal" stable kernel is dropped after the next > > release happens, making their lifespan about 4 months long. 2 years is > > much longer than 4 months, so it still is a "long term supported" kernel > > in contrast, correct? > Perhaps a new name needs to be made for "LTS" for 6 years to distinguish = it from 2 years. > The timeframes are very different. At this point in time, anyone wanting a kernel longer than 2 years should know how this all works. If not, please do some basic research, I have written whitepapers on this and given numerous talks. The information is out there... > >> If 5.10 is "actually" going to be supported for 6 years it would be qu= ite valuable to make such a declaration. > >> https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html > > Why? What would that change? > > > > Ok, seriously, this happens every year, and every year we go through the > > same thing, it's not like this is somehow new, right? > No, but why do we need to keep playing the same game every year now. Because, 5.4 almost did not become "6 years" of support from me. That was because in the beginning, no one said they were going to use it in their devices and offer me help in testing and backporting. Only when I knew for sure that we had people helping this out did I change the date on kernel.org. So far the jury is still out for 5.10, are you willing to help with this? If not, why are you willing to hope that others are going to do your work for you? I am talking to some companies, but am not willing to commit to anything in public just yet, because no one has committed to me yet. What would you do if you were in my situation? thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel