This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Requiring Linux 3.2 for glibc 2.24

On 01-02-2016 08:48, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 02/01/2016 11:42 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>> On Sun, 2016-01-31 at 21:08 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> On 01/31/2016 07:30 PM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>>> I see no compelling reason to switch to a non-supported version. Also I would have prefer GLIBC to keep supporting the minimum LTS kernel version instead of a specific version.
>>> It's mostly 2.6.32 on everything except Alpha.  These cleanups won't
>>> happen over night, especially not the less obvious ones (such as the
>>> ST_VALID cleanup).  I just wonder if we could support 2.6.32 with little
>>> more effort for a one or more future releases.
>> So, IIUC, this wouldn't be a change for anything but Alpha?  Is Alpha
>> really worth this extra treatment?
> No, it's about substantial cleanups which preserve compatibility with
> 2.6.32, except on Alpha, where 2.6.33 will be required.
> The cleanups are exactly the same as we would do when heading towards a
> 3.2 kernel baseline.  It is not a detour at all.
> Are different way of phrasing my proposal: Let's do these cleanups first
> which were previously blocked by Alpha, and when they are done, consider
> the switch to 3.2 as a baseline.

It sounds reasonable, although just raising the minimum version will result
in some better code generation.  Anyway, I think we have plenty of time to
do the cleanup before effectively raising the kernel version.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]