kernel news – 13.05.2013

Posted: May 13, 2013 in kernel

-Greg KH announces the release of kernels 3.0.78, 3.4.45, 3.8.13
(“I’m announcing the release of the 3.8.13 kernel.

NOTE, this is the LAST 3.8.y kernel release, please move to the 3.9.y
kernel series at this time. It is end-of-life, dead, gone, buried, and
put way behind us never to be spoken of again. Seriously, move on, it’s
just not worth it anymore.

And for that specific two-letter hardware company that was insisting in
public that I would be maintaining the 3.8.y kernel as a long-term
kernel so that “you will do our maintenance work for us, for free,”
please see figure one.”) and 3.9.2.

-virtio/lguest fixes are announced by Rusty Russell.

-Mark Brown has a small regmap pull request for 3.10:

A couple of small fixes for the debugfs code – make sure we report
hardware errors back up if we encounter them and fix the display of
register maps that make use of striding.

-Dave Airlie has a few DRM fixes :

Hi Linus,

just a few straggling fixes I hoovered up, and an intel fixes pull from
Daniel which fixes some regressions, and some mgag200 fixes from Matrox.

-Linus Torvalds announces 3.10-rc1:

So this is the biggest -rc1 in the last several years (perhaps ever)
at least as far as counting commits go, even if not necessarily in
actual lines (I didn’t check the statistics on that).

Which was unexpected, because while linux-next was fairly big, it
wasn’t exceptionally so. I’m sure Stephen Rothwell will talk about the
statistics of commits that weren’t in -next, we’ll see if that was the

Anyway, despite the large number of commits, hopefully it’s all
boringly straigthforward. Sure.

Now, even normally, there’s no way to list all the changes, much less
so when it’s an unusually large -rc1. But I can do my “merge shortlog”
again, and it’s worth mentioning (again) that the name attributed to
the merge is *not* necessarily the author of any of the code, it’s
literally just the person who emailed me the pull request. So you can
see this as an approximation of “first-level maintainership” or
something, although even that is somewhat misleading since some of
these things are really done by groups and then there’s one person who
end up sending me the end result.

But it’s somewhat readable, and gives you a reasonable idea of what is
going on. A better idea can be gotten by looking at git directly,
especially since the merge commits often do contain a better
description of what happened. Not that all submaintainers necessarily
always send me that, but most of the merges actually do have
human-readable background information.

It’s possible that I missed something. This really was a busier merge
window than usual. Holler if so,



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s