On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 12:24:10PM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > > On 04/02/2014 12:12 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > >On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 11:56:16AM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > >>On 04/01/2014 04:48 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > >>>I'd really appreciate it if people could look the patch over and provide > >>>further feedback and/or Acks. > >>Assuming you did not look into these things based on the affected > >>scope on the feature page but you are ensuring no breakage in Dracut > >>or Default enable services that expect modules to be available etc? > >Given that a normal install will still be looking for kernel, and kernel > >is a metapackage that requires kernel-core and kernel-drivers, the > >installed set of content is identical to today. So Server, Workstation, > >existing installs should be fine. > > The magic word should ;)
I tested it in a VM several times, going back and forth between existing kernels and kernels from the COPR. It worked as expected. I also tested just installing kernel-core and the VM booted as expected. I would not expect e.g. my laptop to boot with just kernel-core. The Cloud WG really needs to drive as much of the testing as they can here. It's their Change request. > >For Cloud, that's up to them to sort out given that they wanted the > >smaller kernel. > > Is this split good enough to used by embedded or can we expect > another split ( or shaving of core or drivers ) if there emerges an > embedded WG? Further tuning would be needed, perhaps with the exception of ARM. Really though, tranditional embedded usecases build per-board kernels so a distro kernel isn't really well suited to that at all. It's difficult to answer definitively without knowing further what embedded means. josh _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
