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 >>>> >>>> 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 kernel_oldconfig afterwards.
- Felix _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel