[Ksummit-2012-discuss] [ATTEND] Process issues, device model, stable

Paul Gortmaker paul.gortmaker at windriver.com
Fri Jun 22 16:54:25 UTC 2012

On 12-06-19 12:52 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:54:29PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 20:45 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>>>  - Stable kernel releases, mostly in the same areas as everyone else
>>>    has been mentinoning though with a different set of distributions and
>>>    users in mind to most.
>>>    I do keep wondering if it's worth providing a way to flag up
>>>    non-bugfix backports to distros and other people maintaining older
>>>    kernels.  I relatively often find myself with fixes that definitely
>>>    don't meet the stable kernel critera but which realistically I'd
>>>    expect anyone deploying with older kernels to want to grab along with
>>>    their hardware enablement stuff (which is a separate issue).  I think
>>>    this might be part of why people aren't bothering so much as they
>>>    might with tagging things for stable.
>> I've wondered if we should create a 'unstable' branch ;-)  That is, a
>> stable + things that most distros backport.
> That's what the LTSI project is trying to do:
> 	http://ltsi.linuxfoundation.org/
> So far, it's primarily embedded board support patches going into its
> kernel, as that's the people who are paying attention to it.

We've started staging some initial v3.5 feature backports onto v3.4
in yocto; things like the seccomp/BPF and CODEL:


Once the 3.4 LTSI git patch repo is started, we'd definitely like
to move things like the above over to it.


> I'd recommend using that first, before wanting to create
> yet-another-tree.
> thanks,
> greg k-h
> _______________________________________________
> Ksummit-2012-discuss mailing list
> Ksummit-2012-discuss at lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-2012-discuss

More information about the Ksummit-2012-discuss mailing list