Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] stable issues

[Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>]

On 05/04/2014 04:19 AM, Li Zefan wrote:
> I've been dealing with stable kernels. There are some issues that I noticed
> and may be worth discussing.
>
> - Too many LTS kernels?
>
> 2.6.32  Willy Tarreau
> 3.2     Ben Huchings
> 3.4     Greg
> 3.10    Greg
> 3.12    Jiry Slaby
>
> Too many or not? Is it good or bad? One of the problem is the maintenance
> burden. For example, DaveM has to prepare stable patches for 5 stable
> kernels: 3.2, 3.4, 3.10, 3.12 and 3.14.
>
> - Equip Greg with a sub-maintainer?
>
> I found 3.4.x lacked hundreds of fixes compared to 3.2.x. It's mainly
> because Ben has been manually backporting patches which don't apply
> cleanly, while Greg just doesn't have the time budget. Is it possible
> that we find a sub-maintainer to do this work?
>
> - Are there still sub-systems/maintainers not doing very good in stable stuff?
>
> Once I looked into "git log --no-merges v3.4.. kernel/sched/rt.c", out of
> 22 commits, only 2 fixes have stable tag, and finally I backported 4 commits
> to 3.4.x.
>
> - Add a known_issues.txt?
>
> There are stable rules to what patch is acceptable, and besides a maintainer
> may decide not send a fix for stable for some reason, or an issue is taken
> care by no one.
>
> So how about add a known_issues.txt, then anyone who needs to bulid his
> own kernel based on LTS may find it useful.
>
> - Testing stable kernels
>
> The testing of stable kernels when a new version is under review seems
> quite limited. We have Dave's Trinity and Fengguang's 0day, but they
> are run on mainline/for-next only. Would be useful to also have them
> run on stable kernels?

For my part I would love to do that, I just don't have the time to set it up.

Guenter