[LTP] [RFC PATCH 1/2] doc: State the minimal kernel version

[Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>]

Because the tested version does not automatically mean the minimal
supported.

Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
---
Hi all,

I'm sorry to bother you, many of you concentrate on current mainline (or
supported stable) instead of digging into history. But you might know
about somebody who still cares about 3.x. Although not many of these
people would try to run recent LTP on these old versions, but we never
know.

I started with 3.0 as that was the result of the old discussions over
ML.  I'm perfectly ok, if we raise it to 3.10, which is tested.
I guess after CentOS 7 EOL we should raise support even higher.

The motivation is to state the version here, instead in
doc/c-test-api.txt
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ltp/patch/1671166923-2173-7-git-send-email-xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com/

Also stating kernel version limits minimal libc version.
Thus I'm not going to start a discussion about what libc version we
support.

Kind regards,
Petr

 doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt | 7 ++++++-
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt b/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt
index e48e3aeae3..f89c4882fb 100644
--- a/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt
+++ b/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt
@@ -51,7 +51,12 @@ distribution you may as well reconsider you life choices.
 | s390x         | cross compilation
 |==================================
 
-1.3 Supported libc
+1.3 Minimal supported kernel version
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Minimal supported (although untested) kernel version is 3.0.
+
+1.4 Supported libc
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
 [align="center",options="header"]
-- 
2.39.0


-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp