Nick Child <nnac...@linux.ibm.com> writes: > Rather than replacing the versionless vmlinux and System.map files, > copy to files with the version info appended. > > Additionally, since executing the script is a last resort option, > inform the user about the missing `installkernel` command and the > location of the installation. > > This work is adapted from `arch/s390/boot/install.sh`. > > Signed-off-by: Nick Child <nnac...@linux.ibm.com> > --- > > Hoping I am not breaking someones dependency on targeting /boot/vmlinux > so RFC'ing.
It will probably break *someone*'s workflow :) > I typically have kernelinstall on my LPARs and installing and rebooting > goes peacefully. > > Recently, I did not have kernelinstall and `make install` seemed to behave > differently. I got very little output but a succeful return code. After > initramfs issues during boot I dug into the makefiles a bit to figure out > where execution was differing. When `kernelinstall` cannot be found, we > invoke `arch/powerpc/boot/install.sh` instead. I am primarily interested > in getting more information relayed to the user about what is going on. > > The changes to installing with the version appended are more of an > afterthought > that makes sense to me but could understand why someone may depend on > consistent > filenames. > > Opening as RFC for opinions/rejections/concerns. TIL arch/powerpc/boot/install.sh even exists :) I generally netboot kernels, so I don't really use `make install` that much. But I know some folks do, though they probably have `installkernel` installed as a rule. Still this change seems sensible, and putting the version in the file names matches what arm, s390, arm64 and riscv do. See if anyone else has an opinion. cheers
