Conversation
@kernellogger Been there. Request to backport few KVM patches for new AMD processors to distro v4.15 kernel resulted in 500-big patch bomb... and I was only half way. Then we gave up and managed to convince customer that it's not a feasible solution.
1
0
6
@kernellogger "We want everything stable, except for this one new feature we MUST have" X thousands of customers = "enterprise kernel monster"
Or to quote someone wise, "Everybody wants progress, nobody wants change."
Or to quote someone wise, "Everybody wants progress, nobody wants change."
1
12
32
@kernellogger @krzk You are exactly correct here. I hear it all the time, "your stable kernels aren't as tested as our Enterprise kernels are", resulting in "so why don't you test them and let me know the results" for which I never get an answer.
{sigh}
{sigh}
3
3
25
@carrabelloy @kernellogger @krzk We don't need your money, we just need you to test stable kernels (and Linus's kernels) and tell us all is good, or if something breaks!
1
0
3
@minipli @gregkh @kernellogger Timelines indeed sometimes do not align. Consider Ubuntu 18.04 (Bionic) which was using v4.15 kernel because of the timeline and Canonical was basically doing LTS on their own for four years. But timing cannot justify distro/vendor staying on chosen kernel for 4 years, instead of going to next LTS. It's distro's or vendor's deliberate choice - they don't want to update the kernel in released distro version even once per few years. And that choice is here being challenged.
1
0
1
@krzk @minipli @gregkh @kernellogger I agree to the timeline alignment problem. And people who think stable kernel maintainers wouldn't care about test results for stable kernels that already older than 4 weeks would hesitate sharing the results. In a similar way, people who have resource to test the stable kernels only after applying their downstream patches might hesitate sharing their findings.
I also think such test results wouldn't be really useful for stable kernel maintainers, but it might be better than nothing. Could I ask your thought, @gregkh?
I also think such test results wouldn't be really useful for stable kernel maintainers, but it might be better than nothing. Could I ask your thought, @gregkh?
1
0
1
@sj @krzk @kernellogger @minipli I have ALWAYS said that 4 week old results are better than no results at all. Especially if regressions are found, which is the most important thing to detect.
I get many "private" emails from companies that do 1-2 month syncs of the LTS branches in their private SoC trees usually saying "all is good!" which gets them into the habit of doing testing. And every once in a while, they do find a regression, which we work quickly to resolve (many times it's just "use the next version, this was already caught...)
So yes, merge with LTS, test, and let me know the results please.
I get many "private" emails from companies that do 1-2 month syncs of the LTS branches in their private SoC trees usually saying "all is good!" which gets them into the habit of doing testing. And every once in a while, they do find a regression, which we work quickly to resolve (many times it's just "use the next version, this was already caught...)
So yes, merge with LTS, test, and let me know the results please.
1
6
9