Am 12.05.20 um 14:45 schrieb Justin Forbes: > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:50 AM Thorsten Leemhuis <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Am 11.05.20 um 20:20 schrieb Don Zickus: >>> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 09:52:43AM -0700, stan wrote: >>>> On Mon, 11 May 2020 09:44:54 -0700 >>>> stan <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> arch/x86/kernel/setup.c:820:13: warning: 'rh_check_supported' defined but >>>> not used [-Wunused-function] >>>> 820 | static void rh_check_supported(void) >>>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> Odd, the ELN build didn't fail for that reason. >>> In theory, an ELN build should have failed, someone noticed it was related >>> to a specific RH patch, we revert it temporarily until it is fixed and then >>> re-apply. Still some kinks. >> While at it: I noticed the number of patches that are applied to the >> kernel sources went up from nearly 40 to about 75 with the kernel-ark >> transition. Among those 35 additional patches are afaics quite a few >> that are really specific to RHEL (like the one that caused this) and not >> needed for Fedora apart from the ELN. The one that caused this afaics is >> one of them. >> Is that intentional or just something that will get cleaned up? > > Actually, the number of patches has not changed so much as the number > of files containing those patches has. […] > Breaking them out individually also makes it much easier when say 1 > patch from a series got pulled in, or needs to be rebased.
Okay, yeah, that's true, thx for clarifying. I just reacted to patches like these (and some others that depend on it or are related): https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kernel/blob/master/f/0001-Add-Red-Hat-tainting.patch https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kernel/blob/master/f/0001-add-Red-Hat-specific-taint-flags.patch https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kernel/blob/master/f/0001-kernel-add-SUPPORT_REMOVED-kernel-taint.patch https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kernel/blob/master/f/0001-rh_kabi-introduce-RH_KABI_EXCLUDE.patch https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kernel/blob/master/f/0001-redhat-rh_kabi-introduce-RH_KABI_EXTEND_WITH_SIZE.patch Most of them look a bit pointless to me, as they from a quick look shouldn't have any effect on the Fedora (non-ELN!) kernel. That why my head came up with "so why add them in the first place then" and "that violates the patch guidelines for Fedora, which were developed for a reasons"? But whatever, I can see how it helps making lives easier for RH developers. I don't really like that, but I can live with that. CU, knurd _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
