From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59836C433DB for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 17:35:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29BF8208A9 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 17:35:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2392011AbhAZRfa (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jan 2021 12:35:30 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:41666 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726506AbhAZHkK (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jan 2021 02:40:10 -0500 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C503222DFB; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 07:29:27 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1611646168; bh=EeYd7CB89GWAcW8uYhjNeyGSFBIHZRdbLk/gleJ31F0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=CNaZz2CRyrqkmqEJ1L1MkcmfJ1EYBiqHIz1t+RsnXvcu8flhZMFUTbYNSpfAd0EQN vC6l8OFAzqdw7q/Yp3BZc0vofaA1B32DcMVvtkoNgXWVbaB+2EnOzBIowUGEbtfyW0 E8r5zyzAOjHkbbqCg+ndL2FzVJpzXyWa5muasrNQ= Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 08:29:25 +0100 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Scott Branden Cc: Linux ARM , LKML , BCM Kernel Feedback Subject: Re: 5.10 LTS Kernel: 2 or 6 years? Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:55:11AM -0800, Scott Branden wrote: > Hi All, > > The 5.10 LTS kernel being officially LTS supported for 2 years presents a problem: > why would anyone select a 5.10 kernel with 2 year LTS when 5.4 kernel has a 6 year LTS. Because they want to use all of the latest stuff that 5.10 provides them. Don't you want faster and more secure kernels for your devices? > Yet, various unofficial reports indicate it will be supported for 6 years. Rumors are nice, aren't they :) >  And AOSP has already declared the use > of 5.10 kernel in their Android S and T releases. Publically? Where? And is that really the name of the new Android releases, I thought they switched to numbers now (hence the naming of the current android-common kernel branches, marketing is fun...) > Is there some way we could make the LTS support more clear. > A 2 year declaration is not LTS any more. Not true at all, a "normal" stable kernel is dropped after the next release happens, making their lifespan about 4 months long. 2 years is much longer than 4 months, so it still is a "long term supported" kernel in contrast, correct? > If 5.10 is "actually" going to be supported for 6 years it would be quite valuable to make such a declaration. > https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html Why? What would that change? Ok, seriously, this happens every year, and every year we go through the same thing, it's not like this is somehow new, right? I want to see companies _using_ the kernel, and most importantly, _updating_ their devices with it, to know if it is worth to keep around for longer than 2 years. I also, hopefully, want to see how those companies will help me out in the testing and maintenance of that kernel version in order to make supporting it for 6 years actually possible. So, are you planning on using 5.10? Will you will be willing to help out in testing the -rc releases I make to let me know if there are any problems, and to help in pointing out and backporting any specific patches that your platforms need for that kernel release? When I get this kind of promises and support from companies, then I am glad to bump up the length of the kernel support from 2 to 6 years, and I mark it on the web site. Traditionally this happens in Febuary/March once I hear from enough companies. Can I count on your support in this endeavor? Also, a meta-comment. Please reconsider using a single kernel version for longer than 2 years on systems that you actively support and maintain. It's generally a bad idea unless you are stuck with millions of out-of-tree code that something like a customer-unfriendly SoC vendor provides. If you are stuck in that type of situation, well they have decided to spend extra money to keep their out-of-tree code alive, so why are they forcing you to also spend extra money and energy? I can go on about this topic at length if you want me to, I have lots of examples of how to, and not to, maintain a kernel for a device for a long period of time... thanks, greg k-h