(2016/09/27 17:29), Agustin Benito Bethencourt wrote:
On 22/09/16 14:59, Agustin Benito Bethencourt wrote:
at CIP we need to have a clear view of what "Support" means in the
context of the Super Long Term Support kernel.
++ What kind of support will CIP provide? To whom?
CIP will support its members and their developers, not system
administrators or end users. With the current number of members, there
should not be a need for a 'first line' of support between them and the
CIP core developers, though that may change if membership grows
We (our company members) agree.
Commercial Linux based distributions like RHEL promise that a subset ofCorrection:
the kernel module API and ABI remains stable within a major release, so
that many out-of-tree modules can be used without needing to update the
module source or binaries along with the kernel. Some IHVs rely on this
to distribute driver modules in binary form.
CIP should avoid making any such promise because:
* Upstream fixes frequently change the kernel module API and/or ABI and
backporting them in a way that does not is difficult and risky - CIP
users set their own kernel configurations, so there will not be a single
kernel ABI for IHVs to target anyway
Upstream fixes frequently change the kernel module API and/or ABI and
backporting them in a way that is difficult and risky - CIP users set
their own kernel configurations, so there will not be a single kernel
ABI for IHVs to target anyway
* CIP users are responsible for binary releases of both the kernel and
out-of-tree modules, so can ensure that they are properly synchronised.
* The criteria for backporting bug fixes will presumably be based on
'stable-kernel-rules.txt'. However, In CIP context, it is recommended
to be more precise than that.
We think CIP doesn't need to kepp the kernel API/ABI.
Hitachi, Ltd. Research & Development Group