Am 24.06.2015 um 11:09 schrieb Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult: > Am 29.05.2015 um 17:01 schrieb Richard Weinberger: > > Hi, > >> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult >> <weigelt@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Am 29.05.2015 um 04:54 schrieb Luis R. Rodriguez: >>> Actually, I really wonder why folks are sticking to ancient kernels on >>> newer hardware. >> >> Enterprise distribution kernels. > > hmm, by "enterprise" you mean distros like RHEL, which even can't get a > dist-upgrade right ? ;-p Please send such prepubescent flames to /dev/null. > In that case, it's the duty of the dist vendor, to port their (often > horrible) vendor patches. I wouldn't run those distros bare-metal > anyways, so the need for new kernel features (eg. drivers) wouldn't > that huge. > >> Or "special" kernels like PREEMPT_RT. > > PREEMPT_RT is pretty close to upstream. > There're at 4.0.5 right now, and 4.1 is still very fresh. > > If I'd have the need for it (actually was already considering it for our > project), I'd rather port it to 4.1. (as our BSP already is at 4.1) Porting PREEMPT_RT is not that easy. Did you ever? >> Sometimes the vendor BSP is that horrid that a customer cannot afford >> to forward port it but wants recent stuff. So you need to backport... > > By "vendor BSP", you perhaps mean certain soc or board manufacturer > stuff ? Just dont use it, it's usually horrible crap anyways. These > usually are fire-and-forget showcases, not suited for production use. > Waste of resources. So, you rewrite all drivers and the board support from scratch? Interesting. I'd love to meet your customers they seem to have a lot of money and time. ;-) Thanks, //richard -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe backports" in
