On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 8:58 AM Thorsten Leemhuis <fed...@leemhuis.info> wrote: > > Am 12.05.20 um 14:45 schrieb Justin Forbes: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:50 AM Thorsten Leemhuis <fed...@leemhuis.info> > > 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 <upai...@zoho.com> 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
I would say the KABI patches really don't matter at all for Fedora, and there is not really any particular reason to exclude them. The taint patches could send the wrong message, though in all honesty, it just means we have to watch it on bug reports. By policy, tainted bug reports are basically ignored, but these are not. As these use different taint flags, that is not difficult to do, but perhaps I can come up with a way to only apply those for ELN. It is going to take some thinking. We could probably split the RHEL only flag to really mean RHEL only, and add another flag for all Red Hat builds, and then make sure that the RHEL only patches are only applied for non Fedora builds. The downside to this is I do 100% of my work on Fedora, and would not see if there were a problem with these specific patches. I will put some thought into it. Justin _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
