-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 11/3/14, 5:29 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Mon, 03 Nov 2014 07:26:33 +0100, Michal Kubecek
> On Friday 31 of October 2014 18:51:35 Atri Bhattacharya wrote:
>> I can help with that: Kernel 3.17 enables my laptop's (Lenovo
>> Flex 14) touchpad to be recognised while 3.16 doesn't. This is
>> an ALPS v7 device, which got added by way of this commit
/?id=3808843cf10e4a696d942359d99822eff1a2de8e and so missed 3.16.x
series. With 13.2, therefore, my touchpad does not
work (it is
recognised as PS/2 mouse and that is even worse!), but I
upgraded to 3.17.1 from Kernel:Stable and it works now. This is
not an exotic device either: most recent Lenovo laptops in the
Yoga and Flex series come with this or a synaptic touchpad
whose support also only got added to Kernel 3.17.
IMHO we should clearly distinguish between maintenance and
bugfixes on one side and features and HW enablement on the
Meanwhile, we should reconsider why we need to keep the old base
kernel. So far, the arguments for keeping 3.16 are:
A. It's less work for Jeff
It's not a huge difference for me. That's just the reason I haven't
been the one to raise the proposal.
B. kABI can be broken by the new kernel (VMware, etc)
C. More bugs can be introduced than fixed.
Let's begin with A. Here we should replace "Jeff" with general
"kernel maintainers". And rethink: is it really less work?
With 3.16, we have to backport each patch for the reported
security bugs. In the case of stable kernels, it's usually gratis
For any device bugs (regression, not working, whatever): we report
to the upstream, wait resolution there, eventually the upstream
fixes in the latest code, tag to Cc to stable. Then finally we can
backport it by ourselves. For stable kernels, it's usually gratis
The kernel base version change is done by HEAD and stable
branches, and tested by FACTORY. It's already a regular work.
So what would bring "more work" for kernel maintainers by
Now think about B. Yes, this can be a showstopper. However, we
don't have to switch to the very newest kernel but stable kernels.
Ideally, FACTORY is supposed to be tested more widely than before,
so we may catch up the third-party KMPs in time. This needs more
Finally, about C: of course, this is the biggest question. How is
the ratio of fixed vs new bugs? Does anybody have numbers?
One thing I'd like to point out is that our position is mostly
"just reporting to the upstream and cooperating". And, for
upstream, it's even better to be tested with a newer kernel. With
an upstream maintainer hat on, I would ask at first to retest with
a newer kernel if I get such a bug report. That said, keeping the
dead base line is rather more work load for cooperative debugging
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner(a)opensuse.org