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=-3.8 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 B99EAC433E0 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 09:43:06 +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 5257A64E24 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 09:43:06 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5257A64E24 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=F/CTTcqGl+YXSy3NJlLXyOVg0qQ/7H4fVFnJWw5nyUY=; b=MiUw2FqKcguTuKZOBVQT/CMmA KpDhTLIsYuVpxoKr8NBf3HqACKvuSVOqLeHDRx4qAHp+VTUWJtkVTqoxV4l6fh/fgkQBwORvmY/kZ c4Y0NQ3VU4HuZn7ZWrjuceisl75+BUOhLGGQsXnY+XnUL693ozN/9XWoT8nEvE3ncGpEXjlNTlTyx JfkPS9XMrIA1qbiuCWwvF19e8DDFL/SXfAL6NtnWt1iGOAB4XMmfUUzp2pAUeeJ67jcuSkG8W0AXw bm4jqObHUBGxHeLTpY6JER4RCW7f2+jZny8471ZgVJwuuBwlQ+2p4h89L9nw3MYR6jJ6psQXl3Usv PdI/aMVUw==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=merlin.infradead.org) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1lCJKG-0001dH-N8; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 09:40:52 +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 1lCJKC-0001cT-Kh for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 09:40:50 +0000 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0D36A64E24; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 09:40:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1613554847; bh=zTBnhUBicLMK418XoQbCeYvpc/x8gnxbS2YfdtEKuW0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=f3pRHJm5RuCScnkV2FicMYeFVvsYXBuhMI0z1fu4C9b+LkxK/gHRT8gosgPefzWUf DB7+Ub0X+oGys7JXo4gbXeK79HSNbiX3cB4Dk5I0yTWKkeO49+oqLn4DVfHSQoweHG wwXAMFNTn+xiXFNt5esrOCLsUXUGhYBM/dZvMML8= Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 10:40:45 +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: X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20210217_044048_918001_5E90F79F X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 39.84 ) 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 07:51:18PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > 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 prese= nts a problem: > > >> why would anyone select a 5.10 kernel with 2 year LTS when 5.4 kerne= l 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" ker= nel > > > in contrast, correct? > > Perhaps a new name needs to be made for "LTS" for 6 years to distinguis= h 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 = quite 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. Following up on this as I did not hear back from you. Are you and/or your company willing to help out with the testing of 5.10 to ensure that it is a LTS kernel? So far I have not had any companies agree to help out with this effort, which is sad to see as it seems that companies want 6 years of stable kernels, yet do not seem to be able to at the least, do a test-build/run of those kernels, which is quite odd... If you want to point people at your company this link that explains it all in a single location instead of an email thread: http://www.kroah.com/log/blog/2021/02/03/helping-out-with-lts-kernel-relea= ses/ that would be great. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel