[Ksummit-2012-discuss] [ATTEND] Process issues, device model, stable
greg at kroah.com
Sat Jun 23 04:41:46 UTC 2012
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:54:25PM -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> 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.
That sounds good to me, it will be a few weeks before I get 3.4 LTSI
started up, we are trying to get 3.0 LTSI out the door...
More information about the Ksummit-2012-discuss