From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86BBD2BB8 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 16:55:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Nov 2017 07:55:37 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,399,1505804400"; d="scan'208";a="2159763" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.254.93.35]) ([10.254.93.35]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 Nov 2017 07:55:37 -0800 To: Thomas Monjalon , Stephen Hemminger Cc: dev@dpdk.org References: <20170926071712.25009-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <30826506.x33gGObbU7@xps> From: Ferruh Yigit Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 07:55:36 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <30826506.x33gGObbU7@xps> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: update oldest supported kernel X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:55:38 -0000 On 11/11/2017 8:30 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 26/09/2017 09:17, Stephen Hemminger: >> The DPDK needs to stay up to date with current LTS Linux kernel support. >> If the kernel is older than LTS it is likely to be insecure and buggy. >> Therefore only require DPDK to work on oldest LTS kernel. >> >> If distribution vendors want to support DPDK on older kernels, that is >> their choice. But the upstream source does not need to be cluttered >> with support for this. >> >> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger >> --- >> doc/guides/linux_gsg/sys_reqs.rst | 4 +++- > [...] >> **Required:** >> >> -* Kernel version >= 2.6.34 >> +* Kernel version >= 3.2.93 > > I think we should not specify any minor number. 3.2 is enough. > > It would make more sense to change this constraint at the beginning > of a release cycle. If agreed on this, I can send a few cleanup patches for kni and igb_uio after this patch applied. >