WTF: patch "[PATCH] ARC: Support syscall ABI v4" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.7-stable tree?

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 01:28:45PM -0700, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> On 09/06/2016 01:22 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> > > Not "we need to support gcc6 for
> > > old kernels", as really, if someone wants to update userspace, they
> > > don't update their kernel?
> 
> FWIW, I'm not arguing for the backport inclusion - I'm just trying to explain the
> context more.
> 
> Thing is your regular user/customer don't really care/know about these details. So
> there are tools bugs and more often than not the easy answer for tools providers
> is "this is a known issue in gcc x.y which has been fixed in gcc x2.y2 so consider
> upgrading". So it is for such class of users that having such backports makes life
> a little easy.

That's fine, but who would be upgrading their userspace gcc and then
wanting to rebuild their kernel for an old kernel release?  What
prevents them from also updating their kernel?

I understand the context, I'm just trying to say that this really is a
"new feature" you are wanting here from what I can tell.  I'd recommend
just having people upgrade their kernel :)

thanks,

greg k-h