[OE-core] [PATCH 1/1] linux-yocto/3.4: v3.4.10 and uprobes/kprobes configuration updates

[Bruce Ashfield]

On 12-09-11 01:22 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
> On (11/09/12 01:17), Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>> On 12-09-11 1:16 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>> On (11/09/12 00:58), Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>>> On 12-09-11 12:55 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>>> On (11/09/12 00:52), Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>>>>> On 12-09-11 12:50 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>>>>> On (10/09/12 14:11), Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>>>>>>> Updating to 3.4.10 which has been soaking for a bit now, as well
>>>>>>>> as picking up the following meta commits from Tom Z:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> would it also need bumping linux-libc-headers too ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's no new interfaces in the -stable updates, so there's no reason
>>>>>> to bump. I typically elect to jump to a 3.x.0 and leave it there, but
>>>>>> we had an interim bump that I wouldn't have done .. so we sit at 3.4.3
>>>>>> at the moment (which is still fine).
>>>>>
>>>>> OK. Next question is, do stable updates get changes such that we need to
>>>>> bump the linux-libc-headers ?
>>>>
>>>> Not that I've ever seen.
>>>
>>> OK thats what I was expecting to hear
>>> so in theory if we always pin linux-libc-headers to major release we are
>>> good. say 3.4.0 and then 3.6.0 and so on we really dont need 3.4.1 or
>>> later and similarly for other versions. In this case we only bump
>>> the linux-libc-headers recipe when we add a new major kernel release
>>
>> Correct. If you check the mailing list archives, I was a bit surprised
>> to see it go to 3.4.3, but going forward, expect to only see major rev
>> bumps.
>
> yes essentually IIRC I mentioned that recipe should be called
> blah_3.4.bb and blah_3.6.bb and so on and not really blah_3.4.x etc.
> OK I am glad we are on same page boundary here :)

Agreed. We are in sync.

Bruce