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
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.
openwrt-devel mailing list