On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 05:38:34PM +0000, Jon Hunter wrote: > > On 16/01/2019 17:11, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 04:56:08PM +0000, Jon Hunter wrote: > >> > >> On 16/01/2019 16:02, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 09:25:12AM +0000, Jon Hunter wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 15/01/2019 16:35, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >>>>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.14.94 release. > >>>>> There are 27 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > >>>>> to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > >>>>> let me know. > >>>>> > >>>>> Responses should be made by Thu Jan 17 15:48:28 UTC 2019. > >>>>> Anything received after that time might be too late. > >>>>> > >>>>> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at: > >>>>> https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.14.94-rc1.gz > >>>>> or in the git tree and branch at: > >>>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-4.14.y > >>>>> and the diffstat can be found below. > >>>>> > >>>>> thanks, > >>>>> > >>>>> greg k-h > >>>> All tests are passing for Tegra ... > >>>> > >>>> Test results for stable-v4.14: > >>>> 8 builds: 8 pass, 0 fail > >>>> 16 boots: 16 pass, 0 fail > >>>> 14 tests: 14 pass, 0 fail > >>>> > >>>> Linux version: 4.14.94-rc1-gec31b1a > >>>> Boards tested: tegra124-jetson-tk1, tegra20-ventana, > >>>> tegra210-p2371-2180, tegra30-cardhu-a04 > >>> > >>> Thanks for testing two of these. > >>> > >>> How about 4.19 and 4.20? Does modern kernels work on this hardware as > >>> well? :) > >> > >> We are not that advanced yet ;-) > > > > So not everything for those platforms is upstream? :( > > No sorry! I really was joking. We have enough upstream to test all these > platforms (plus a couple more) today :-) > > >> Only joking, absolutely and in fact we have more devices/boards > >> supported in newer kernels so it would make sense. We are also testing > >> mainline and -next. > >> > >> Unfortunately, it is a bit of a process to add new branches at the > >> moment simply because we are piggy backing on existing infrastructure > >> for testing that I personally do not own and so it needs to be approved. > >> However, nonetheless it is doable. > >> > >> We were talking about adding v4.19 and then v4.20 popped up. I am not > >> sure if you have any ideas yet about the EOL for v4.20? I was just > >> wondering if we should prioritise v4.20 now over v4.19? > > > > I was just curious, if everything was upstream (like the boards that > > linaro tests for), then running 4.19 should be just the same as 4.20. > > But if you have big out-of-tree patchsets, that's a totally different > > story. > > Yes testing stable-v4.19/v4.20 is straight forward and will work today. > I just need to go through the process of setting it up and requesting > this. However, while you were asking, I was curious if you had any idea > of the projected EOL for stable-v4.20 yet? Sorry, the EOL for 4.20 will be once 5.0 is out, usually around the 5.0.3 timeframe or such, like any other "normal" stable kernel lifecycle. thanks, greg k-h
