Greg Kroah-Hartman Stretches Support Periods for Key Linux LTS Kernels
fossforce.com54 points by brideoflinux 3 days ago
54 points by brideoflinux 3 days ago
I'm having trouble squaring these two statements from the article:
> the Linux kernel is catching up with its users’ wants when it comes to longevity.
> Kernel end-of-life dates mean very little for users, even at the enterprise level.
So... no one cares about longevity? Or they do? I'm confused.
It explains further down that it means little because unofficial support was already available
Enterprises that care about using a kernel for many years typically put their own resources into providing the level of maintenance they require (or getting it from a distro that maintains their own LTS kernels), rather than depending on upstream to keep the patches coming for that branch. But if the upstream kernel support timelines become more closely aligned with what those downstream users want, they may shift to tracking upstream LTS branches.
Glad to see every single one of these decisions. Thanks to the maintainers and the foundation for making this happen.
Are we seeing Android phones upgrade their kernels yet? This Samsung S22 is still on 5.10. I thought that part of the idea for Android GKI was that phones would start getting kernel upgrades. But I'm not sure if that's actually happening.
I wish there was more pressure for this. Especially as Android Virtualization Framework starts really arriving & being useful, having a more modern kernel could be a very nice help, could offer neat new capabilities.
Google did it with the Tensor-powered Pixels a while back, from w/e they shipped with to 6.1
Okay, but 6.1 is still from December 2022. Like... it's an improvement, but as my desktop sits at 6.19 and 7.0 is impending, I have to question why they lag so much.
OP was talking about that they now have and pursue the intention of upgrading the kernel during the lifetime of the device. Instead of device launching with LTS kernel, which is supported for many years upstream, and always using it, instead LTS kernels are supported for 2 years (or extended like here), and the devices keep moving on to the next lts branch during their lifetime (usually not immediately, but after the regressions fixed for next branch, tested well before that in avf VMS etc)
Why would there be a need to upgrade the kernel? Security updates are often backported, so it can still be 5.10 but patched...
It could be, but are vendors actually upgrading kernels along with firmware updates? In my experience it's more like, ship 5+ year old kernel and then forget it forever.
So long as they keep up with patches that can be fine, but newer kernels also have useful feature improvements. If nothing else, performance tends to improve over time.
In practice upgrading kernel can easily cause performance regressions and cause multiple other issues (reduced battery life) so there's a lot of risk for zero reward for an OEM to do that.
After all, they're on the hook for not breaking users already working devices and don't get anything by risking lawsuits and recalls.
there's basically zero intersection between mainline linux version support timelines and android kernels as deployed on phones
GKI is only stable within the point release. It means that 5.10 LTS Linux can be safely updated to the latest versions 5.10 LTS Linux. The regular LTS branch has no compatibility guarantees that drivers for one release will be compatible with the next release on that branch.
No 6.1? That's disappointing. Also I am surprised the previous decision wasn't reverted sooner. Linux foundation surely has enough resources to upkeep LTS kernels for longer.
[flagged]
We neither need, nor benefit from this precis, which is longer than the headline but contains no additional information and insight. On hn people are encouraged to read tfa for themselves.
If you have showdead on, that user's comment history is rather full of this sort of thing. Seemingly restarted half a year ago, but with similar conduct in the pre-LLM era as well.
Actually, as the article falls into that "ad begging" category and requires time-consuming disabling of tracking, I can understand why someone posts a summary.
I don't personally mind summaries (generally), but this isn't even a (useful) summary, it's effectively the same information as is in the title.