From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A362957 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 02:01:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pa0-f53.google.com (mail-pa0-f53.google.com [209.85.220.53]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A85A61DE for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 02:01:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id cy9so24242288pac.0 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 19:01:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Alex Shi To: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Mark Brown Message-ID: <57C78BE9.30009@linaro.org> Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 10:01:13 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ltsi-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" Subject: [Ksummit-discuss] [Stable kernel] feature backporting collaboration List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi All, I am a Linaro stable kernel maintainer. Our stable kernel is base on LTS plus much of upstream features backporting on them. Here is the detailed info of LSK: https://wiki.linaro.org/LSK https://git.linaro.org/?p=kernel/linux-linaro-stable.git These kind of backporting features are requested by many LSK members which most are leading ARM product vendors. LSK target on the feature backporting collaboration, to reduce the duplicate work on that. Current LTSI: https://ltsi.linuxfoundation.org/what-is-ltsi, has similar target for backporting collocation. but there are still couples problems. 1, LTSI is focus on board support more than feature backporting 2, ltsi kernel version 3.10/3.14/4.1 is older than LTS and LSK 3.18/4.1/4.4. 3, merge everything together isn't good for some users and can not give user option to select preferred kernel feature. On the contrary, each of feature backported separately on latest LTS in LSK, user can just pick their wanted features and merge them for their own kernel. 4, all vendor specific driver in one branch get complains and developing status make it hard to handle changes in a fast-forward stable kernel. As to LSK, although most feature are ARM related, but LSK also provide some common feature which works on other archs, like cgroupv2, RO-vDSO, KASAN, PAX_USERCOPY, etc. I believe this common backporting is also useful for common industries. If so, could we call a better way for feature backporting collaboration? Regards. Alex === lsk backported features ==== Coresight Coresight-TMC/ETM IPA dm-crypt performance OPP v2 PCIe for arm64/Juno R1 PAN OF-overlay PSCI Cgroup-writeback RO-vDSO KASan KALSR IOMMU DMA Hibernate on arm64 Devfreq cooling PAX_USERCOPY