[OE-core] [PATCH 3/5] lttng-modules: upgrade to 2.9.0

[Bruce Ashfield]

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Nathan Lynch <nathan_lynch at mentor.com>
wrote:

> Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield at gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Following up on this old patch .. since it causing a problem with my
> > introduction of
> > the 4.10 kernel.
> >
> > I'm going to have to switch back to the git fetching of lttng to easily
> > pull in the latest
> > changes to adapt to the 4.10 kernel.
>
> I don't see why.  Support for 4.10 has been in lttng-modules' stable-2.9
> branch since January, and is included in the v2.9.1 release, which was
> tagged a week ago, right before the 4.10 release.  I had intended to
> send the update for lttng-modules on Monday but since I've got it ready
> I'll send it in a few minutes.
>
> You should not need to use lttng-modules' master branch to work with
> released Linux versions.
>

Yup. If you look at the history of our lttng recipe .. I've ben hacking on
it for quite some time.


>
>
> > lttng just doesn't release often enough for bleeding edge kernels,
>
> That's not my impression at all. The LTTng project diligently tracks
> upstream kernel development and ensures that the latest stable branch of
> lttng-modules supports the latest released kernel.
>

I didn't say they didn't do that. I'm saying that they don't spin enough
tarballs at times.


>
>
> > while maintaining
> > a set of patches on top of the released version is possible .. I don't
> see
> > the point.
>
> Maintaining a set of patches on top of the released version of
> lttng-modules should not be necessary.
>

It is .. I'm always ahead of released kernels. So when I work with a -dev
kernel, waiting for lttng to release doesn't work. I would have put out 4.10
a few weeks ago, but instead I kept waiting.


>
> > I missed the discussion on this one when it first came out, so I missed
> the
> > reason that
> > we switched away from git to the release tarballs ?
>
> I know there's a diversity of opinion on the subject in general, but in
> the absence of a need to use git, I think using a release tarball should
> be preferred.
>

In this case, I'm switching back to git, since for anyone working on newer
or in-devel kernels, the release process is just too slow. I'll avoid it
since
you just put out the update, but when I start tracking 4.11 in a few weeks
.. it will again break the builds.

Bruce




-- 
"Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee
at its end"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20170226/54fe72c0/attachment-0002.html>