From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754930Ab1EEPRV (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 May 2011 11:17:21 -0400 Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]:36025 "EHLO 1wt.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754589Ab1EEPRT (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 May 2011 11:17:19 -0400 Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 17:17:02 +0200 From: Willy Tarreau To: Stanislaw Gruszka Cc: Greg KH , stable@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [stable] -longterm kernels (Was: Re: Patch Upstream: iwlwifi: fix skb usage after free) Message-ID: <20110505151702.GG2090@1wt.eu> References: <201105030110.p431A5W0005426@hera.kernel.org> <20110504223605.GA5967@kroah.com> <20110505145854.GA4670@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110505145854.GA4670@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, 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, Willy