From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 16:13:24 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: Dmitry Torokhov Message-ID: <20160711231324.GB3627@roeck-us.net> References: <20160709000631.GB8989@io.lakedaemon.net> <1468024946.2390.21.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20160709093626.GA6247@sirena.org.uk> <5781148F.1010102@roeck-us.net> <20160709212130.GC26097@thunk.org> <20160711151300.GB3701@sirena.org.uk> <20160711170333.GE3890@thunk.org> <20160711171506.GC26822@dtor-ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160711171506.GC26822@dtor-ws> Cc: James Bottomley , ksummit-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org, Jason Cooper Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] stable workflow List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:15:06AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 01:03:33PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 04:13:00PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Sat, Jul 09, 2016 at 05:21:30PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > > > > > the latest stable kernel. (But even if they do, apparently many > > > > device vendors aren't bothering to merge in changes from the SOC's BSP > > > > kernel, even if the BSP kernel is getting -stable updates.) > > > > > > It would be pretty irresponsible for device vendors to be merging BSP > > > trees, they're generally development things with ongoing feature updates > > > that might interact badly with things the system integrator has done > > > rather than something stable enough to just merge constantly. > > > > So the question is who actually uses -stable kernels, > > Community-based distros definitely use stable, but that might be the > latest stable, not the older stables that are out there. > Also smaller companies who don't want to pay distribution vendors for kernel maintenance (especially since some of those won't let you change the kernel). Those would include older stable releases. > > and does it make > > sense for it even to be managed in a git tree? > > > > Very few people will actually be merging them, and in fact maybe > > having a patch queue which is checked into git might actually work > > better, since it sounds like most people are just cherry-picking > > specific patches. > > Cherry picking a commit from a branch/remote is much nicer than fetching > a part of [quilt based?] patch queue from git, unless I misunderstand > what you are proposing. > Yes, but it isn't really feasible for small companies, where the entire kernel maintenance may be handled by one engineer. Using -stable is really the only feasible option there. Guenter