[cip-dev] Maintenance policies and early considerations IV

[cip-dev] Maintenance policies and early considerations IV

[Agustin Benito Bethencourt]

Hi,

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 
significantly.

Commercial Linux based distributions like RHEL promise that a subset of 
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

* 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.

Best Regards

-- 
Agustin Benito Bethencourt
Principal Consultant - FOSS at Codethink
agustin.benito at codethink.co.uk

[cip-dev] Maintenance policies and early considerations IV

[Agustin Benito Bethencourt]

Hi,

On 22/09/16 14:59, Agustin Benito Bethencourt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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
> significantly.
>
> Commercial Linux based distributions like RHEL promise that a subset of
> 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

Correction:

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.
>
> Best Regards
>
Best regards
-- 
Agustin Benito Bethencourt
Principal Consultant - FOSS at Codethink
agustin.benito at codethink.co.uk

[cip-dev] Maintenance policies and early considerations IV

[小口琢夫 / KOGUCHI，TAKUO]

Hi Agustin,
Let me understand what you wrote.
> > 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
> 
> Correction:
> 
> 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
> 

Is the correction correct?
I thought you wrote;
 * Upstream fixes frequently change the kernel module API and/or ABI and
 backporting them in a way that does not (change the kernel module API and/or ABI )is difficult and risky   - CIP
Am I wrong?

Takuo Koguchi

[cip-dev] Maintenance policies and early considerations IV

[Daniel Sangorrin]

Hi Koguchi-san,

I think you are right. It's my fault, sorry.

Daniel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org [mailto:cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org] On Behalf Of ???? / KOGUCHI?
> TAKUO
> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 4:35 PM
> To: 'Agustin Benito Bethencourt'; cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> Subject: Re: [cip-dev] Maintenance policies and early considerations IV
> 
> Hi Agustin,
> Let me understand what you wrote.
> > > 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
> >
> > Correction:
> >
> > 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
> >
> 
> Is the correction correct?
> I thought you wrote;
>  * Upstream fixes frequently change the kernel module API and/or ABI and
>  backporting them in a way that does not (change the kernel module API and/or ABI )is difficult and risky   - CIP
> Am I wrong?
> 
> Takuo Koguchi
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cip-dev mailing list
> cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> https://lists.cip-project.org/mailman/listinfo/cip-dev

[cip-dev] Maintenance policies and early considerations IV

[Ben Hutchings]

On Fri, 2016-10-07 at 07:34 +0000, ???? / KOGUCHI?TAKUO wrote:
> Hi Agustin,
> Let me understand what you wrote.
> > > 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
> > 
> > Correction:
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> 
> Is the correction correct?

The first version is what I wrote, and the correction says something I
did not mean to say.

> I thought you wrote;
>  * Upstream fixes frequently change the kernel module API and/or ABI and
>  backporting them in a way that does not (change the kernel module API and/or ABI )is difficult and risky   - CIP
> Am I wrong?

No, you understand me rightly.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Software Developer, Codethink Ltd.

[cip-dev] Maintenance policies and early considerations IV

[Jan Kiszka]

On 2016-09-22 14:59, Agustin Benito Bethencourt wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 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
> significantly.
> 
> Commercial Linux based distributions like RHEL promise that a subset of
> 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
> 
> * 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.
>

Nit: it's stable_kernel_rules.txt. We should start this way and
augment/adjust rules after discussions as we find potential conflicts.

Sounds reasonable to me in general.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG
Corporate Technology
Research & Technology Center
CT RDA ITP SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
Otto-Hahn-Ring 6
81739 Muenchen
Tel.: +49 89 636-634006
Fax: +49 89 636-33045
mailto:jan.kiszka at siemens.com

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft: Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Gerhard
Cromme; Managing Board: Joe Kaeser, Chairman, President and Chief
Executive Officer; Roland Busch, Lisa Davis, Klaus Helmrich, Janina
Kugel, Siegfried Russwurm, Ralf P. Thomas; Registered offices: Berlin
and Munich, Germany; Commercial registries: Berlin Charlottenburg, HRB
12300, Munich, HRB 6684; WEEE-Reg.-No. DE 23691322

[cip-dev] Maintenance policies and early considerations IV

[Hidehiro Kawai]

Hi,

(2016/09/27 17:29), Agustin Benito Bethencourt wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 22/09/16 14:59, Agustin Benito Bethencourt wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> 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
>> significantly.

We (our company members) agree.

>> Commercial Linux based distributions like RHEL promise that a subset of
>> 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
> 
> Correction:
> 
> 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.

Best regards,

Hidehiro Kawai
Hitachi, Ltd. Research & Development Group