Re: [PATCH 1/1] linux-yocto/3.4: v3.4.10 and uprobes/kprobes configuration updates

[Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@windriver.com>]

On 12-09-11 1:16 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
> On (11/09/12 00:58), Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>> On 12-09-11 12:55 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>> On (11/09/12 00:52), Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>>> On 12-09-11 12:50 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>>> On (10/09/12 14:11), Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>>>>> Updating to 3.4.10 which has been soaking for a bit now, as well
>>>>>> as picking up the following meta commits from Tom Z:
>>>>>
>>>>> would it also need bumping linux-libc-headers too ?
>>>>
>>>> There's no new interfaces in the -stable updates, so there's no reason
>>>> to bump. I typically elect to jump to a 3.x.0 and leave it there, but
>>>> we had an interim bump that I wouldn't have done .. so we sit at 3.4.3
>>>> at the moment (which is still fine).
>>>
>>> OK. Next question is, do stable updates get changes such that we need to
>>> bump the linux-libc-headers ?
>>
>> Not that I've ever seen.
>
> OK thats what I was expecting to hear
> so in theory if we always pin linux-libc-headers to major release we are
> good. say 3.4.0 and then 3.6.0 and so on we really dont need 3.4.1 or
> later and similarly for other versions. In this case we only bump
> the linux-libc-headers recipe when we add a new major kernel release

Correct. If you check the mailing list archives, I was a bit surprised
to see it go to 3.4.3, but going forward, expect to only see major rev
bumps.

Cheers,

Bruce

>
> Since there are no new features or user exported
>> defines that make it into the -stable updates, using the base
>> version headers
>> is reasonable. It saves churn, and keeps all of the QA and testing
>> results directly applicable throughout feature freeze by leaving the
>> the stable.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>