<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Nathan Lynch <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nathan_lynch@mentor.com" target="_blank">nathan_lynch@mentor.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>Bruce Ashfield <<a href="mailto:bruce.ashfield@gmail.com" target="_blank">bruce.ashfield@gmail.com</a>> writes:<br>
<br>
> Following up on this old patch .. since it causing a problem with my<br>
> introduction of<br>
> the 4.10 kernel.<br>
><br>
> I'm going to have to switch back to the git fetching of lttng to easily<br>
> pull in the latest<br>
> changes to adapt to the 4.10 kernel.<br>
<br>
</span>I don't see why. Support for 4.10 has been in lttng-modules' stable-2.9<br>
branch since January, and is included in the v2.9.1 release, which was<br>
tagged a week ago, right before the 4.10 release. I had intended to<br>
send the update for lttng-modules on Monday but since I've got it ready<br>
I'll send it in a few minutes.<br>
<br>
You should not need to use lttng-modules' master branch to work with<br>
released Linux versions.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yup. If you look at the history of our lttng recipe .. I've ben hacking on</div><div>it for quite some time.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span><br>
<br>
> lttng just doesn't release often enough for bleeding edge kernels,<br>
<br>
</span>That's not my impression at all. The LTTng project diligently tracks<br>
upstream kernel development and ensures that the latest stable branch of<br>
lttng-modules supports the latest released kernel.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I didn't say they didn't do that. I'm saying that they don't spin enough </div><div>tarballs at times.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span><br>
<br>
> while maintaining<br>
> a set of patches on top of the released version is possible .. I don't see<br>
> the point.<br>
<br>
</span>Maintaining a set of patches on top of the released version of<br>
lttng-modules should not be necessary.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It is .. I'm always ahead of released kernels. So when I work with a -dev</div><div>kernel, waiting for lttng to release doesn't work. I would have put out 4.10</div><div>a few weeks ago, but instead I kept waiting.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span><br>
<br>
> I missed the discussion on this one when it first came out, so I missed the<br>
> reason that<br>
> we switched away from git to the release tarballs ?<br>
<br>
</span>I know there's a diversity of opinion on the subject in general, but in<br>
the absence of a need to use git, I think using a release tarball should<br>
be preferred.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>In this case, I'm switching back to git, since for anyone working on newer</div><div>or in-devel kernels, the release process is just too slow. I'll avoid it since</div><div>you just put out the update, but when I start tracking 4.11 in a few weeks</div><div>.. it will again break the builds.</div><div><br></div><div>Bruce</div><div> </div></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="m_9193072267414708295gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">"Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee at its end"</div>
</div></div>