On 2018-02-22 16:39, Tim Harvey wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 4:14 AM, Felix Fietkau <n...@nbd.name> wrote:
>> On 2018-02-22 09:34, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>>> On 2018-02-22 01:12, Tim Harvey wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 2:36 PM, Felix Fietkau <n...@nbd.name> wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-02-20 19:23, Tim Harvey wrote:
>>>>>> We are using F2FS as our overlay read/write FS. Others can be supported
>>>>>> as modules.
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tim Harvey <thar...@gateworks.com>
>>>>> I think it would be a good idea to leave in ext4. If the overlay storage
>>>>> area is too small for f2fs, fstools chooses ext4 instead.
>>>>> - Felix
>>>> That makes sense. I think the other patches apply if that one is
>>>> skipped, or would you rather I re-submit a new sieres (assuming there
>>>> is no other feedback)
>>> No need to resubmit the series, you can send an updated version of this
>>> patch (removing only ext2/ext3) separately.
>> No need to do that anymore. It turns out that there were a lot more
>> bogus config overrides in that target, some of them breaking the build
>> in various other places.
>> I've cleaned it up and verified that a build with all kernel modules
>> enabled now actually works ;)
>> - Felix
> Thanks Felix!
> Can you explain what I could have done to see or catch these? Is this
> something that came up because it was a new target arch or is it
> something to look out for when bumping from one kernel to another as
> well? I'm not clear what the best practices are for creating a kernel
> config for OpenWrt.
I open up config-* in an editor and look at every line and ask myself
whether it makes sense for the target to set it.
I simply delete everything that doesn't make sense to me, then run make
Lede-dev mailing list