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 4E065CAC for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 06:41:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ua1-f66.google.com (mail-ua1-f66.google.com [209.85.222.66]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A21F913A for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 06:41:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua1-f66.google.com with SMTP id g18-v6so785163uam.6 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 23:41:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20180911113725.5d91b945@jawa> <20180911193308.GA4429@kroah.com> <2400444.QbA1LOmrIy@avalon> In-Reply-To: From: Geert Uytterhoeven Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:40:52 +0200 Message-ID: To: Thomas Gleixner Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Greg KH , lukma@denx.de, Jonas Jensen , Alex S Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Deprecation / Removal of old hardware support List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Thomas, On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 11:50 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 12 Sep 2018, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Tuesday, 11 September 2018 22:33:08 EEST Greg KH wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 11:37:25AM +0200, Lukasz Majewski wrote: > > > > In the kernel community we pose a lot of attention to security (for > > > > example the prompt reaction on meltdown/spectre), but in the same time > > > > we tend to forget about the "long lived" devices and force their > > > > maintainers to use 2.6.x kernels..... (or even 2.4.x). > > > > > > We care, but really, how much can we do here? > > > > > > I've been working a lot with the Adroid ecosystem to try to help fix > > > their bad habits of "grab a random kernel and ship it and never update > > > it" by providing longer lived kernels that they can constantly update > > > their devices to. > > > > > > But their lifetimes is much shorter compared to yours, and I have no > > > insight into what kernels are being used, what configurations you all > > > care about, and how long you need/want them updated. > > > > > > Working with really old kernels like you have, without hardware > > > available to test is a hard task. If your hardware is in a system like > > > kernelci, then you can be sure that any new kernel will work properly > > > with your system and then you might not want to have to stay with really > > > old kernels that no one can maintain :) > > > > > > There's a Linux Foundation project, "CIP" that wants to maintain kernels > > > for devices like what you are making for 20+ years. They are having the > > > problems of not knowing exactly what platforms they wish to support, but > > > their goal is good, hopefully they eventually nail something down and we > > > can work together. Perhaps you should contact them to try to help solve > > > this issue for everyone? > > > > I may be wrong, but I understand Lukasz's comment as the exact opposite: we > > forget about long-lived devices and drop their support while they're still in > > active use, forcing vendors to start using old and unsupported kernels. If a > > large number of ARMv4(T) devices are still being actively deployed and > > maintain, we should treat them as first-class citizens. > > But that does not mean, that we have to support ancient compilers > forever. If that stuff needs to be treated as first class citizens then > someone who has vested interest in this needs to fix that. That's none of > our business, really. The issue here is that gcc dropped armv4 (not v4t AFAIK) support. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds