On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 01:35:38PM +0100, Mason wrote: > On 16/01/2017 11:34, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 09:39:39AM +0100, Mason wrote: > > > >> Hello Greg, > >> > >> A few months ago, you stated that you were considering making v4.9 > >> the latest LTS version. > >> > >> http://kroah.com/log/blog/2016/09/06/4-dot-9-equals-equals-next-lts-kernel/ > >> > >> Neither https://www.kernel.org/ nor https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html > >> list 4.9 as an LTS version yet. > >> > >> Could you clear (some of) my confusion? > > > > It's a bit hard for a kernel to be "LTS" when it hasn't even had the > > chance to move out of the "normal" stable release process, right? :) > > I think it might be worthwhile mentioning somewhere that 4.9 is LTS. > (My manager thought 4.4 was the latest.) As you can see by my questions, I haven't come to that final conclusion yet :) > > Is there anything in your testing of 4.9 that you feel needs to be > > resolved before you would feel comfortable using it as a LTS kernel? > > How has it worked out for your platform and workload? Any warning flags > > that you feel would keep it from being a good LTS kernel? > > I see that you back-ported the fix for the HOTPLUG crash regression > that affected my platform, so thanks for that. Other than that, we're > getting ready to run a full regression test, so I guess I'll know more > in a few weeks :-) Please let me know if you find any issues. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html