On 09/06/2016 12:39 PM, gregkh at linuxfoundation.org wrote: > On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 09:50:46AM -0700, Vineet Gupta wrote: >> On 09/05/2016 06:03 AM, gregkh at linuxfoundation.org wrote: >>> The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.7-stable tree. >>> >>> I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at >>> Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt. >>> >>> I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to >>> <stable at vger.kernel.org> and let me know why this patch should be >>> applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be >>> seen again. >> Hi Greg, >> >> We are about to switch to new version of GNU tools (gcc 6.x based) which >> unfortunately has a non compatible ABI change - as described in the patch. >> >> Some of our customers are going to stick with older kernels and thus this helps >> them upgrade to newer tools with their existing baseline kernels. > That's nice, but it's a new feature. Stick with old userspace for older > kernels, and use new kernels for new userspace if you so desire. I understand your point. This is what we did at the time of upstreaming the kernel - and was something I was hoping to avoid this time because this is a flag day change. People get locked into kernel version or tools - when the kernel code itself didn't really change a bit. But if this really is against the norms of stable backports, then I suppose we can't do much ? Thx, -Vineet > > We do allow some new gcc fixes to be backported, but that's always where > we have found bugs, or build warnings. Not "we need to support gcc6 for > old kernels", as really, if someone wants to update userspace, they > don't update their kernel? > > thanks, > > greg k-h >
