This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Requiring Linux 3.2 for glibc 2.24
- From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- To: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>, Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 11:48:04 +0100
- Subject: Re: Requiring Linux 3.2 for glibc 2.24
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1601311614080 dot 31071 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <56AE4D5F dot 9080105 at redhat dot com> <E549E742-5E32-4C68-947A-40F32EB61FB8 at linaro dot org> <56AE69A0 dot 4030302 at redhat dot com> <1454323323 dot 4592 dot 272 dot camel at localhost dot localdomain>
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.