date:20120719

On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 10:43 +0200, Damien Martins wrote:
 Same behaviour :/
 
 dmesg shows :
[...]

MTU of 9000 requires 4 contiguous pages of memory for each packet.  On a
machine with only 256 MB of memory, that tends to be hard to find.  This
is not a bug.

Are the checksum errors gone?

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
DNRC Motto:  I can please only one person per day.
Today is not your day.  Tomorrow isn't looking good either.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Bug#674153: [3.2.16 - 3.2.17 regression] High reported CPU load when idle

On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 11:12 +0200, Lesław Kopeć wrote:
 On 07/18/2012 01:25 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
  Anders Boström wrote:
  
  Starting with 3.2.17-1, the CPU load accounting is broken when the
  computer is idle. The CPU load is reported as 0.50 when
  idle. 3.2.16-1 don't suffer from this problem.
 
  Suspected patch is the upstream patch
  sched: Fix nohz load accounting -- again!
  commit 5e2d50da11f0e6ec3ce8fe658d7c83b0b4346c68 to 3.2 and
  originating from c308b56b5398779cd3da0f62ab26b0453494c3d4 .
  
  Please test the attached patch against a 3.2.y kernel, for example
  following the instructions below:
 
 Good news everyone. I have tested kernel 3.2.21 and the attached patch
 (based on 5167e8d I presume) seems to be fixing all the load average
 oddities. I've compiled following kernels:
 
 * 3.2.21-hz   (CONFIG_NO_HZ=n)
 * 3.2.21-no-hz(CONFIG_NO_HZ=y)
 * 3.2.21-no-hz-5167e8d(CONFIG_NO_HZ=y) + attached patch
 
 The load reported by 3.2.21-hz and 3.2.21-no-hz-5167e8d is exactly the
 same under different CPU usage. Without the patch the tickless kernel
 tends to show lower load values than what you would expect.
 
 I can't say much for the case when load is too high on an idle machine,
 because I haven't been able to reproduce the problem in the first place.
 
 To summarize: the bug is present in unpatched kernel and fixed by
 applying the attached patch. No nasty side effects noticed.

This is in the review queue for Linux 3.2.24.  I'm hesistant to apply it
until it's been through the stable review process (probably early next
week).  But, if there's no objection to it there, it will end up in
Debian pretty soon.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
DNRC Motto:  I can please only one person per day.
Today is not your day.  Tomorrow isn't looking good either.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Bug#682007: linux-image-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-amd64: NULL pointer dereference in __fscache_read_or_alloc_pages

On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 13:37 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
 On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 11:16:33AM -0500, Brian Kroth wrote:
  ** Tainted: PO (4097)
   * Proprietary module has been loaded.
   * Out-of-tree module has been loaded.
 
  21:04:00 kefka [187206.183487] Pid: 20810, comm: MATLAB Tainted: P
  O 3.2.0-0.bpo.2-amd64 #1
 
 We don't support proprietary stuff. Please remove and try again.

To be clear, Bastian is referring to the proprietary kernel module
(nvidia).

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
DNRC Motto:  I can please only one person per day.
Today is not your day.  Tomorrow isn't looking good either.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Bug#682007: linux-image-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-amd64: NULL pointer dereference in __fscache_read_or_alloc_pages

2012-07-19 Thread Brian Kroth


Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk 2012-07-19 13:32:

On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 13:37 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 11:16:33AM -0500, Brian Kroth wrote:
 ** Tainted: PO (4097)
  * Proprietary module has been loaded.
  * Out-of-tree module has been loaded.

 21:04:00 kefka [187206.183487] Pid: 20810, comm: MATLAB Tainted: P
 O 3.2.0-0.bpo.2-amd64 #1

We don't support proprietary stuff. Please remove and try again.


To be clear, Bastian is referring to the proprietary kernel module
(nvidia).


Ok.  The driver is required for some third party engineering software we 
have to run, but I can rig a spare machine to run some of these other 
jobs without it for a bit.  I'll report back if/when I have a new panic.


I will note though that the driver comes from the debian provided 
packages (albeit from backports instead of stable).


Thanks,
Brian


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [opensuse-kernel] Re: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues

On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 07:48:27PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
 
 Let's have an example: when I have to build upstream on a distro here,
 I take the distro config and use it despite that it takes a long time
 to build since everything is module - it is still better for me to
 wait that one time instead of doing a dozen of trial and errors after
 forgetting a config option each time.

This is where 'make localmodconfig' does help. It can remove a lot of
modules for you. And I just recently fixed a bug in the tool that it now
removes even more modules (The fix is in linux-next).

Also, if you are building on another box than what the kernel is for,
you can go to that box and run 'lsmod  /tmp/lsmod'. Copy that file to
the build machine (into /tmp/lsmod), and then run
'make LSMOD=/tmp/lsmod localmodconfig', and this will remove the modules
not used by the target box.

-- Steve


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120719144217.gc16...@home.goodmis.org

Bug#682116: linux-image-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-amd64: NULL pointer dereference related to nfs/cachefilesd

2012-07-19 Thread Raoul Bhatia [IPAX]

Package: src:linux
Version: 3.2.20-1~bpo60+1
Severity: important


I'm seeing an error much like the one reported as bug #682007.

The setup seems quite similar:
1. NFS server exports an nfsv4 share:
   /data/export
192.168.100.0/24(rw,async,wdelay,hide,nocrossmnt,secure,no_root_squash,no_all_squash,no_subtree_check,secure_locks,acl,fsid=1000,anonuid=65534,anongid=65534)
2. the client mounts the share:
   192.168.100.200:/data/export on /data/www type nfs 
(rw,nosuid,nodev,nodiratime,relatime,timeo=15,fsc,vers=4,addr=192.168.100.200,clientaddr=192.168.100.109)
3. we use cachefilesd to increase the performance. The cache resides on a 
dedicated lvm partition formatted with xfs:
   Filesystem   Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
   /dev/mapper/vg4-nfscache  20G   14G  6.4G  69% /data/nfscache



This is reproducable using grep -r abc * inside a directory with
   9541 files (no sym- or hardlinks, no block or character special files) in
   1524 directories
(PHP MODX installation)


The full output from /var/log/syslog :

Jul 19 16:40:31 wc01 kernel: [44550.980065] 
Jul 19 16:40:31 wc01 kernel: [44550.984601] CacheFiles: Error: Overlong wait 
for old active object to go away
Jul 19 16:40:31 wc01 kernel: [44550.989460] object: OBJ1c3d6
Jul 19 16:40:31 wc01 kernel: [44550.993923] objstate=OBJECT_LOOKING_UP fl=0 
wbusy=2 ev=0[7b]
Jul 19 16:40:31 wc01 kernel: [44550.998330] ops=0 inp=0 exc=0
Jul 19 16:40:31 wc01 kernel: [44551.002598] parent=8802356b9c00
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.006733] cookie=8800a99132b8 
[pr=880435456588 nd=88020b3f7040 fl=7]
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.010845] key=[16] 
'01000101e8033484d6633aa75132'
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.014987] xobject: OBJ1c3d5
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.018841] xobjstate=OBJECT_RECYCLING fl=0 
wbusy=2 ev=20[3]
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.022711] xops=0 inp=0 exc=0
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.026476] xparent=8802356b9c00
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.030137] xcookie=NULL
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.200193] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL 
pointer dereference at 0040
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.201859] [kworke] unexpected submission 
OPa7bd5 [OBJ1c4e7 OBJECT_LOOKING_UP]
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.201917] [kworke] objstate=OBJECT_LOOKING_UP 
[OBJECT_LOOKING_UP]
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.201926] [kworke] objflags=2
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.201928] [kworke] objevent=0 
[fffb]
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.201930] [kworke] ops=0 inp=0 exc=0
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.201936] Pid: 553, comm: kworker/7:2 
Tainted: G  D  3.2.0-0.bpo.2-amd64 #1
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.201938] Call Trace:
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.202150]  [a03b584f] ? 
fscache_submit_op+0x3ab/0x3fc [fscache]
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.202162]  [a03b5eec] ? 
__fscache_write_page+0x1e1/0x290 [fscache]
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.202183]  [a04ca522] ? 
rpc_put_task+0xa/0xa [sunrpc]
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.202217]  [a053b7b9] ? 
__nfs_readpage_to_fscache+0x4e/0xce [nfs]
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.202305]  [a051aa18] ? 
nfs_readpage_release+0x2e/0x87 [nfs]
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.202319]  [a051adf3] ? 
nfs_readpage_release_full+0x31/0x48 [nfs]
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.202328]  [8105f96c] ? 
process_one_work+0x1cc/0x2ea
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.202333]  [8105fbb7] ? 
worker_thread+0x12d/0x247
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.202337]  [8105fa8a] ? 
process_one_work+0x2ea/0x2ea
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.202341]  [8105fa8a] ? 
process_one_work+0x2ea/0x2ea
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.202347]  [810633c5] ? 
kthread+0x7a/0x82
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.202355]  [8136ca74] ? 
kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.202358]  [8106334b] ? 
kthread_worker_fn+0x147/0x147
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.202362]  [8136ca70] ? 
gs_change+0x13/0x13
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.234197] [kworke] preemptive burial: OBJd29e 
[OBJECT_RECYCLING] 88041ce02440
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.204008] IP: [a03b65f7] 
__fscache_read_or_alloc_pages+0x194/0x262 [fscache]
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.204008] PGD 37ef32067 PUD 384533067 PMD 0 
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.204008] Oops:  [#3] SMP 
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.204008] CPU 1 
Jul 19 16:40:32 wc01 kernel: [44551.204008] Modules linked in: xt_TCPMSS 
act_police cls_flow cls_fw cls_u32 sch_htb sch_hfsc sch_ingress sch_sfq bridge 
xt_time xt_connlimit xt_realm xt
_addrtype iptable_raw xt_comment xt_recent xt_policy ipt_ULOG ipt_REJECT 
ipt_REDIRECT ipt_NETMAP ipt_MASQUERADE ipt_ECN ipt_ecn ipt_CLUSTERIP ipt_ah 
nf_nat_tftp nf_nat_snmp_basic nf_co
nntrack_snmp nf_nat_sip nf_nat_pptp

Bug#682007: linux-image-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-amd64: NULL pointer dereference in __fscache_read_or_alloc_pages

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 09:03:26AM -0500, Brian Kroth wrote:
 Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk 2012-07-19 13:32:
 On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 13:37 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
 On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 11:16:33AM -0500, Brian Kroth wrote:
  ** Tainted: PO (4097)
   * Proprietary module has been loaded.
   * Out-of-tree module has been loaded.
 
  21:04:00 kefka [187206.183487] Pid: 20810, comm: MATLAB Tainted: P
  O 3.2.0-0.bpo.2-amd64 #1
 
 We don't support proprietary stuff. Please remove and try again.
 
 To be clear, Bastian is referring to the proprietary kernel module
 (nvidia).
 
 Ok.  The driver is required for some third party engineering
 software we have to run, but I can rig a spare machine to run some
 of these other jobs without it for a bit.  I'll report back if/when
 I have a new panic.

 I will note though that the driver comes from the debian provided
 packages (albeit from backports instead of stable).

I realise that, but it's not part of Debian proper and none of us
signed up to debug drivers that don't come with source.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking.
  - Albert Camus


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120719152127.gy1...@decadent.org.uk

Re: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 02:17:30PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
 
 The *two* requirements (and they're really the same theme) I
 personally think we should have for this are
 
  -  I think every single select for these things should come with a
 comment about what it is about and why the distro needs it (to show
 there was some thought involved and not just a blind took it from the
 distro config)

What about expanding on Alan's idea. I'm guessing that 99% of the users
build the kernel for the box that they are running. If this is the case,
perhaps we can get the distros to add a:

  /usr/share/Linux/Kconfig

And this Kconfig would have something like:

bool Distro X config
 select A
 select B
 select C
 [...]

Perhaps with a comment for each select. Or have the comments in the help
section.

Then have the kernel kbuild system check if this file exists and include
it.

Of course the kbuild system would need to verify that the selects exist,
and perhaps warn if they do not. But the nice thing about this is that
you would get the minconfig for the system you are running. When the
system is updated to a new version, the minconfig would be updated too.
The list of selects would not have to live in the kernel, nor would the
kernel need to maintain the list for N+1 different distributions.


 
  - It should be about *minimal* settings. I'd rather have too few
 things and the occasional complaint about oh, it didn't work because
 it missed XYZ than have it grow to contain all the options just
 because somebody decided to just add random things until things
 worked.

Side note, and this is for the 1%. If you want a true minconfig for your
system, ktest can do that for you. You can set it up to run a test to
create a minimum config that will boot (and optionally run some test you
specify). It turns off configs in order of importance (chooses those
that select a lot, or are depended on most, first), and sees if it can
boot without the config. The end result can be rather a very small set
of configs.

See tools/testing/ktest/examples/include/min-config.conf for more
details.

-- Steve

 
 Other than that, even if it only gets you *closer* to a kernel that
 works with that distro, I think it doesn't have to be all that
 perfect. Because the alternative is what we have now.
 
Linus
 --
 To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
 the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
 More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120719152618.gd16...@home.goodmis.org

Re: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues

2012-07-19 Thread Linus Torvalds

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:

 Side note, and this is for the 1%. If you want a true minconfig for your
 system, ktest can do that for you.

Try it, it's actually much harder than it seems. Like allmodconfig, it
handles the minimum hardware well, but it tends to handle the subtle
issues really badly.

Many config options cause *very* subtle failures that are almost
impossible to see. Like firewalls not loading correctly (and leaving
the machine completely open), or just stuff that you didn't happen to
test (USB sticks, printers, certain programs) not working. Not having
the right audit options will make things still work, but you'll get
warnings at bootup, and who knows what that causes etc etc.

These kinds of things are exactly why I'd like to have a distro config.

   Linus


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CA+55aFzTq2CNxPa3X+N=bifgifrmwbewqjzlvfafdyswxqc...@mail.gmail.com

Re: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 11:26:18AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
 On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 02:17:30PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
  
  The *two* requirements (and they're really the same theme) I
  personally think we should have for this are
  
   -  I think every single select for these things should come with a
  comment about what it is about and why the distro needs it (to show
  there was some thought involved and not just a blind took it from the
  distro config)
 
 What about expanding on Alan's idea. I'm guessing that 99% of the users
 build the kernel for the box that they are running. If this is the case,
 perhaps we can get the distros to add a:
 
   /usr/share/Linux/Kconfig
 
 And this Kconfig would have something like:
 
 bool Distro X config
  select A
  select B
  select C
  [...]
 
 Perhaps with a comment for each select. Or have the comments in the help
 section.
 
 Then have the kernel kbuild system check if this file exists and include
 it.
 
 Of course the kbuild system would need to verify that the selects exist,
 and perhaps warn if they do not. But the nice thing about this is that
 you would get the minconfig for the system you are running. When the
 system is updated to a new version, the minconfig would be updated too.
 The list of selects would not have to live in the kernel, nor would the
 kernel need to maintain the list for N+1 different distributions.

Is there a reason you don't want distro maintainers to maintain these
files in the upstream git tree?  (You said the kernel need to
maintain, but I would expect the distro maintainers to be doing that
work.)

I think it would actually be beneficial to maintain them upstream
instead of in distro kernel packaging.  You'd be able to track the
history of changes with git.  You would see for a given kernel
version what options are set for each distro (e.g. F17 can support
NEW_FOO_THING but F16 userspace can't so it doesn't select that).
Perhaps most importantly, it provides a consolidated view of what
options various distros are setting and allows the distro maintainers to
easily do comparisons.

josh


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120719154521.gc8...@zod.bos.redhat.com

Re: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues

On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 11:45 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
 Of course the kbuild system would need to verify that the selects exist,
  and perhaps warn if they do not. But the nice thing about this is that
  you would get the minconfig for the system you are running. When the
  system is updated to a new version, the minconfig would be updated too.
  The list of selects would not have to live in the kernel, nor would the
  kernel need to maintain the list for N+1 different distributions.
 
 Is there a reason you don't want distro maintainers to maintain these
 files in the upstream git tree?  (You said the kernel need to
 maintain, but I would expect the distro maintainers to be doing that
 work.)
 
 I think it would actually be beneficial to maintain them upstream
 instead of in distro kernel packaging.  You'd be able to track the
 history of changes with git.  You would see for a given kernel
 version what options are set for each distro (e.g. F17 can support
 NEW_FOO_THING but F16 userspace can't so it doesn't select that).
 Perhaps most importantly, it provides a consolidated view of what
 options various distros are setting and allows the distro maintainers to
 easily do comparisons.

Then we'll have a list of options in each kernel:

 Fedora 16
 Fedora 17
 Fedora 18
 [...]
 Debian x
 Debian x+1
 Debian x+2
 [...]
 Ubuntu y
 Ubuntu y+1
 [...]

What about older kernels? Say you installed Fedora 18 with an older
kernel that doesn't know what to select? Having the distro tell the
kernel what it needs seems to me the easiest for the 99% case.

Also, if something isn't supported by the older kernel, it would warn
the user about it. That way the user can be told that their older kernel
won't work with this version of the distro. And there wont be as many
surprises. If the user is told your init wont work with this kernel
before they compile it, then they shouldn't complain if they decide to
install this older kernel and their box doesn't boot.

-- Steve



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1342714088.12353.33.ca...@gandalf.stny.rr.com

Re: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues

On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 08:43 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
 On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
 
  Side note, and this is for the 1%. If you want a true minconfig for your
  system, ktest can do that for you.
 
 Try it, it's actually much harder than it seems. Like allmodconfig, it
 handles the minimum hardware well, but it tends to handle the subtle
 issues really badly.
 
 Many config options cause *very* subtle failures that are almost
 impossible to see. Like firewalls not loading correctly (and leaving
 the machine completely open), or just stuff that you didn't happen to
 test (USB sticks, printers, certain programs) not working. Not having
 the right audit options will make things still work, but you'll get
 warnings at bootup, and who knows what that causes etc etc.
 
 These kinds of things are exactly why I'd like to have a distro config.

This is why it was more of a side note, and for the 1%. If there's
things you have tests for, to confirm that they work, you could add
those to the TEST option, and the config generated will guarantee to fix
them.

But as you stated, there's lots of subtle things that can go wrong. I
was just posting this as a plug for ktest ;-)

For what you want, I think having the distro supply
a /usr/share/Linux/Kconfig that the linux build system can use would be
very helpful.

-- Steve



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1342714322.12353.36.ca...@gandalf.stny.rr.com

Re: [opensuse-kernel] Re: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues

2012-07-19 Thread Michal Marek

On 17.7.2012 10:03, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
 On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Linus Torvalds
 torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
 On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:26 PM,  da...@lang.hm wrote:
 Some of the proposed ways to implement the minimum distro kernel would not
 allow you to override the distro defaults because they would be implemented
 by setting dependancies, not by selecting options that you as the user could
 then unselect.

 The sanest thing to do is just a list of select statements. And in
 any case it would have to depend on the distro config entry, so EVEN
 THEN you could just create the Kconfig file, then edit out the distro
 config thing, and then do whatever you want.
 
 Except that select is one of the ugliest things in Kconfig, as it
 blindly sets a symbol
 without checking if its dependencies are fulfilled.

But for the few options Linus proposed (TMPFS, TMPFS_POSIX_*,
DEVTMPFS(_MOUNT)), the amount of additional dependencies is reasonable.
For something more advanced like 'build me a kernel for a laptop with
$VENDOR hardware', we would need a better dependency solver, indeed.

Michal


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50082f44.7070...@suse.cz

[bts-link] source package src:linux

2012-07-19 Thread bts-link-upstream

#
# bts-link upstream status pull for source package src:linux
# see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
#

user bts-link-upstr...@lists.alioth.debian.org

# remote status report for #680707 (http://bugs.debian.org/680707)
# Bug title: Asus P5NSLI: lockup on resume from suspend
#  * http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43641
#  * remote status changed: RESOLVED - CLOSED
usertags 680707 - status-RESOLVED
usertags 680707 + status-CLOSED

thanks


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20120719164044.3284.50572.btsl...@busoni.debian.org

Re: [opensuse-kernel] Re: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 10:42:17AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
 On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 07:48:27PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
  
  Let's have an example: when I have to build upstream on a distro here,
  I take the distro config and use it despite that it takes a long time
  to build since everything is module - it is still better for me to
  wait that one time instead of doing a dozen of trial and errors after
  forgetting a config option each time.
 
 This is where 'make localmodconfig' does help. It can remove a lot of
 modules for you. And I just recently fixed a bug in the tool that it now
 removes even more modules (The fix is in linux-next).

Even more modules? When is enough, enough? :-)

 Also, if you are building on another box than what the kernel is for,
 you can go to that box and run 'lsmod  /tmp/lsmod'. Copy that file to
 the build machine (into /tmp/lsmod), and then run
 'make LSMOD=/tmp/lsmod localmodconfig', and this will remove the modules
 not used by the target box.

Seriously, this helps only in the cases where the stuff the distro
actually needs is in modules. So, there probably are obscure situations
where you need to enable stuff which is bool and not M. Hopefully those
cases are seldom enough so thanks for this, I'll try that the next time.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach
GM: Alberto Bozzo
Reg: Dornach, Landkreis Muenchen
HRB Nr. 43632 WEEE Registernr: 129 19551


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120719164807.gd23...@aftab.osrc.amd.com

Re: [opensuse-kernel] Re: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues

On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 18:48 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:

  Also, if you are building on another box than what the kernel is for,
  you can go to that box and run 'lsmod  /tmp/lsmod'. Copy that file to
  the build machine (into /tmp/lsmod), and then run
  'make LSMOD=/tmp/lsmod localmodconfig', and this will remove the modules
  not used by the target box.
 
 Seriously, this helps only in the cases where the stuff the distro
 actually needs is in modules. So, there probably are obscure situations
 where you need to enable stuff which is bool and not M. Hopefully those
 cases are seldom enough so thanks for this, I'll try that the next time.
 

This is why I created the make-min-config in ktest. It keeps on
disabling configs to see what the machine needs to boot (and optionally
run some test), and what configs it can disable. It does not touch the
multi options though.

It creates two configs. One that has the configs that it can't turn off
(still enabled with a make allnoconfig, or selected by something that it
must have), and a config that just has the configs that 'if I disable
this, the box doesn't boot'.

Here's an example:

For my min-config files with the configs that couldn't be turned off:

$ wc -l config-min*
  117 config-min
  139 config-min-net

The config-min will get the box to boot (no network). The -net, adds
enough to ssh to the box.

$ wc -l config-skip*
 11 config-skip
 14 config-skip-net

The above are the configs that ktest found if it disabled, would not
boot (or ssh).

$ cat config-skip-net
CONFIG_SERIAL_8250_CONSOLE=y
CONFIG_SATA_AHCI=y
CONFIG_E1000=y
CONFIG_QUOTA=y
CONFIG_ATA=y
CONFIG_UNIX=y
CONFIG_INET=y
CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y
CONFIG_EXT4_FS=y
CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT=y
CONFIG_SERIAL_8250=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_SD=y
CONFIG_NET=y
CONFIG_NETDEVICES=y

I can pass the above to a allnoconfig, and the box will boot and allow
ssh. Note, the reason for the serial config, is that this ktest run uses
a serial port to see if the box booted. If the serial isn't there, then
it thinks it failed.

-- Steve



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1342717366.12353.48.ca...@gandalf.stny.rr.com

Re: [opensuse-kernel] Re: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues

2012-07-19 Thread Linus Torvalds

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Borislav Petkov b...@amd64.org wrote:

Seriously, this helps only in the cases where the stuff the distro
actually needs is in modules. So, there probably are obscure situations
where you need to enable stuff which is bool and not M.

Sadly, not obscure at all.

Most of the *drivers* are modules, but most of the distro config
options are indeed booleans (or, if tristate, =y).

Even driver-wise, there are some things that are often =y, even though
you generally don't want them. PCMCIA? Not even *laptops* have that
shit any more, but having built-in cardbus support almost certainly
helps in a distro kernel for booting of certain odder cases.

Xen support? Odd partition tables? All the different AGP versions?
Many of us couldn't care less, but again, it makes sense in the actual
distro kernel, even if it does *not* necessarily make sense in a
personalized one.

So doing make allmodconfig is certainly a workable thing (modulo the
modules that you need for stuff you hadn't happened to use), but it's
not wonderful.

I also hate having to enable support for modules. A non-modular build
is quicker to build and avoids some security issues. Some drivers
don't work well built-in (they load firmware etc too early), but imho
it's worth doing if you can, and it's something we should make easy
for people to do because of the security side (of course, per-build
randomly generated keys and signed modules with the keys deleted after
the build would be reasonably equivalent from a security standpoint,
but we're not there yet).

Linus

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/CA+55aFxX41pGnHcc17A=vbnw+03lewkwatizwobbpgd9ap3...@mail.gmail.com

Re: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:08:08PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
 On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 11:45 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
  Of course the kbuild system would need to verify that the selects exist,
   and perhaps warn if they do not. But the nice thing about this is that
   you would get the minconfig for the system you are running. When the
   system is updated to a new version, the minconfig would be updated too.
   The list of selects would not have to live in the kernel, nor would the
   kernel need to maintain the list for N+1 different distributions.
  
  Is there a reason you don't want distro maintainers to maintain these
  files in the upstream git tree?  (You said the kernel need to
  maintain, but I would expect the distro maintainers to be doing that
  work.)
  
  I think it would actually be beneficial to maintain them upstream
  instead of in distro kernel packaging.  You'd be able to track the
  history of changes with git.  You would see for a given kernel
  version what options are set for each distro (e.g. F17 can support
  NEW_FOO_THING but F16 userspace can't so it doesn't select that).
  Perhaps most importantly, it provides a consolidated view of what
  options various distros are setting and allows the distro maintainers to
  easily do comparisons.
 
 Then we'll have a list of options in each kernel:
 
  Fedora 16
  Fedora 17
  Fedora 18
  [...]
  Debian x
  Debian x+1
  Debian x+2
  [...]
  Ubuntu y
  Ubuntu y+1
  [...]

Well, yes.  I was thinking it would be more like:

distro/Kconfig.fedora
menuconfig FEDORA
if FEDORA
config FEDORA_16
   select WHATEVER
config FEDORA_17
...

distro/Kconfig.debian
menuconfig DEBIAN
if DEBIAN
config DEBIAN_X
...

etc.

Not one giant distro file with a bunch of varying distros doing a bunch
of selects.  But in general, yes there would be options for each
supported distro release.

 What about older kernels? Say you installed Fedora 18 with an older
 kernel that doesn't know what to select? Having the distro tell the
 kernel what it needs seems to me the easiest for the 99% case.

How is the above not telling the kernel what it needs?  I'm confused how
the location of such a file makes it's functionality and usefulness
differ...  Quite possible I missed what you meant originally, but it
sounds like we're talking about the same thing?

Also, I'm not very convinced the 99% are going to be wanting to install
shiny new versions of a distro with a kernel older than what the distro
ships with.  I could be very wrong, but it seems like in-general the
whole premise of this RFC was geared towards using new kernels on
distros.

 Also, if something isn't supported by the older kernel, it would warn
 the user about it. That way the user can be told that their older kernel
 won't work with this version of the distro. And there wont be as many
 surprises. If the user is told your init wont work with this kernel
 before they compile it, then they shouldn't complain if they decide to
 install this older kernel and their box doesn't boot.

kconfig already spits out warnings for symbols being selected that
don't exist.

josh


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120719171918.gd8...@zod.bos.redhat.com

Re: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues

2012-07-19 Thread Alan Cox


 Well, yes.  I was thinking it would be more like:
 
 distro/Kconfig.fedora
   menuconfig FEDORA
   if FEDORA
   config FEDORA_16
  select WHATEVER
   config FEDORA_17

Nope you need

distro/everyarchtheyship/everykernelvarianttkeyship(smp,largemem,arm
boards)/Kconfig

which for some distros is over 20 per release and the end user wouldn't
have a cat in hells chance of knowing which to pick.

For the end user case you need the distro to plonk the right file in the
right place and be done with it, once they do that the rest is
bikeshedding a ten line Makefile rule.

Alan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120719183047.69de3...@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk

Re: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues

On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 13:19 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:

  What about older kernels? Say you installed Fedora 18 with an older
  kernel that doesn't know what to select? Having the distro tell the
  kernel what it needs seems to me the easiest for the 99% case.
 
 How is the above not telling the kernel what it needs?  I'm confused how
 the location of such a file makes it's functionality and usefulness
 differ...  Quite possible I missed what you meant originally, but it
 sounds like we're talking about the same thing?

The point is, the user wont have to think What distro am I running? and
what version am I running?. I don't even know what version of the disto
I'm currently running (Debian testing).

The point is, the current running distro supplies what is needed from
the kernel in order to work properly. The user does not need to 'select'
it. They would only have to select a 'add my distro min configs'.

A developer working with a user could just say, select disto config
without needing to know what distro the user has.

What happens if someone does a yum update, and the kernel requirement
changes slightly. The yum update should update
this /usr/share/Linux/Kconfig. But it's still set at Fedora X. The
kernel can not be updated for these slight changes.

 
 Also, I'm not very convinced the 99% are going to be wanting to install
 shiny new versions of a distro with a kernel older than what the distro
 ships with.  I could be very wrong, but it seems like in-general the
 whole premise of this RFC was geared towards using new kernels on
 distros.

There are times when the update breaks something. A user may backport to
an older kernel where their Gizmo worked. I've done this to get webcams
working. I know I'm not the 99%, but the rational for my operation was a
99% thing to do: Crap, I upgraded my kernel and now my webcam doesn't
work. Oh well, download an older version and boot that one.

 
  Also, if something isn't supported by the older kernel, it would warn
  the user about it. That way the user can be told that their older kernel
  won't work with this version of the distro. And there wont be as many
  surprises. If the user is told your init wont work with this kernel
  before they compile it, then they shouldn't complain if they decide to
  install this older kernel and their box doesn't boot.
 
 kconfig already spits out warnings for symbols being selected that
 don't exist.

We can make these even bigger :-)   Add lots of stars (*) around them!

-- Steve



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1342719222.12353.58.ca...@gandalf.stny.rr.com

Re: [opensuse-kernel] Re: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 01:02:46PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
 This is why I created the make-min-config in ktest. It keeps on
 disabling configs to see what the machine needs to boot (and optionally
 run some test), and what configs it can disable. It does not touch the
 multi options though.
 
 It creates two configs. One that has the configs that it can't turn off
 (still enabled with a make allnoconfig, or selected by something that it
 must have), and a config that just has the configs that 'if I disable
 this, the box doesn't boot'.
 
 Here's an example:
 
 For my min-config files with the configs that couldn't be turned off:
 
 $ wc -l config-min*
   117 config-min
   139 config-min-net
 
 The config-min will get the box to boot (no network). The -net, adds
 enough to ssh to the box.
 
 $ wc -l config-skip*
  11 config-skip
  14 config-skip-net
 
 The above are the configs that ktest found if it disabled, would not
 boot (or ssh).
 
 $ cat config-skip-net
 CONFIG_SERIAL_8250_CONSOLE=y
 CONFIG_SATA_AHCI=y
 CONFIG_E1000=y
 CONFIG_QUOTA=y
 CONFIG_ATA=y
 CONFIG_UNIX=y
 CONFIG_INET=y
 CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y
 CONFIG_EXT4_FS=y
 CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT=y
 CONFIG_SERIAL_8250=y
 CONFIG_BLK_DEV_SD=y
 CONFIG_NET=y
 CONFIG_NETDEVICES=y
 
 I can pass the above to a allnoconfig, and the box will boot and allow
 ssh. Note, the reason for the serial config, is that this ktest run uses
 a serial port to see if the box booted. If the serial isn't there, then
 it thinks it failed.

I agree with all this and you've explained this to me live already so
you're preaching to the choir.

But it would be a lot faster/easier if users can select, let's call'em
profiles which are not mutually exclusive and can speed up the
configuration process. They can either be distro-specific or generic,
selecting certain features you need.

So configuring your kernel would be like shopping without paying too
much attention to details. Let's look into the head of a person doing a
config like that and read some of her thoughts :):

Hm, ok, this new configurator is cool, a lot faster I gotta say... So,
what do I need, ah, yes, it is an AMD laptop so from vendors I select
AMD, then I probably need ext4, then I'd like to do packet filtering
so I should enable iptables.. Oh, I'd like to do tracing too so let's
enable tracing and trust Steven with the options he's added by default,
then I need ahci, I'd also like to do encrypted partitions so I'll
enable device mapper with crypto... 

So all those things could be selectable from that profiles menu without
having to go through the gazillion of little suboptions and having to
read help (which is sometimes completely helpless) and figure out do I
need it or not.

And this would simplify configuration a lot. IMHO, anyway.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach
GM: Alberto Bozzo
Reg: Dornach, Landkreis Muenchen
HRB Nr. 43632 WEEE Registernr: 129 19551


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120719173415.ge23...@aftab.osrc.amd.com

Re: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues

2012-07-19 Thread Alan Cox

  kconfig already spits out warnings for symbols being selected that
  don't exist.
 
 We can make these even bigger :-)   Add lots of stars (*) around them!

Make oldconfig already handles this just fine

Alan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120719184118.03cb3...@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk

Re: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 06:30:47PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
 
  Well, yes.  I was thinking it would be more like:
  
  distro/Kconfig.fedora
  menuconfig FEDORA
  if FEDORA
  config FEDORA_16
 select WHATEVER
  config FEDORA_17
 
 Nope you need
 
 distro/everyarchtheyship/everykernelvarianttkeyship(smp,largemem,arm
 boards)/Kconfig
 
 which for some distros is over 20 per release and the end user wouldn't
 have a cat in hells chance of knowing which to pick.

I wasn't include arch-specific options in the minimal distro config
stuff.  That doesn't seem minimal to me.  I was thinking more along the
lines of distro X needs CGROUPS, SELINUX, HOTPLUG, DEVTMPFS, namespace
stuff.  Stuff that they need that is basically architecture
independent that the distro userspace needs.

Having the distro provide files that select architecture specific
options and variations of that really doesn't seem any better than what
most of them do already, which is just ship the whole damn config file
in /boot (or some other location).

 For the end user case you need the distro to plonk the right file in the
 right place and be done with it, once they do that the rest is
 bikeshedding a ten line Makefile rule.

If people want the distros to plonk some architecture+distro specific
minimal config file down as part of the packaging, I guess that's a
thing that could be done.  I'd honestly wonder if maintaining X number
of those in the packaging is something the distro maintainers would
really like to do, but one can always hope.

josh


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120719173800.ge8...@zod.bos.redhat.com

Re: [opensuse-kernel] Re: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 10:06:44AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
 On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Borislav Petkov b...@amd64.org wrote:
 
  Seriously, this helps only in the cases where the stuff the distro
  actually needs is in modules. So, there probably are obscure situations
  where you need to enable stuff which is bool and not M.
 
 Sadly, not obscure at all.
 
 Most of the *drivers* are modules, but most of the distro config
 options are indeed booleans (or, if tristate, =y).
 
 Even driver-wise, there are some things that are often =y, even though
 you generally don't want them.

Tell me about it. I'm always pissed off when someone thinks his stuff is
very important and sets his sacred option to be =y/=m by default so the
wider audience can at least compile-test it while the majority of the
machines don't actually need it.

A more coarse-grained config where most of the stuff is off by default
could take care of that probably.

 PCMCIA? Not even *laptops* have that shit any more, but having
 built-in cardbus support almost certainly helps in a distro kernel for
 booting of certain odder cases.

Yeah, distros need the one-size-fits-all thing so they have to enable
*everything*.

 Xen support? Odd partition tables? All the different AGP versions?
 Many of us couldn't care less, but again, it makes sense in the actual
 distro kernel, even if it does *not* necessarily make sense in a
 personalized one.

Yep.

 So doing make allmodconfig is certainly a workable thing (modulo the
 modules that you need for stuff you hadn't happened to use), but it's
 not wonderful.

Oh and I always aim to build distro kernels on a big machine -
allmodconfig build is no fun on a tiny laptop. So would it be better
to have better profiled kernels, obviating the need for an almost full
build? Hell yeah!

 I also hate having to enable support for modules. A non-modular build
 is quicker to build and avoids some security issues. Some drivers
 don't work well built-in (they load firmware etc too early), but imho
 it's worth doing if you can, and it's something we should make easy
 for people to do because of the security side (of course, per-build
 randomly generated keys and signed modules with the keys deleted after
 the build would be reasonably equivalent from a security standpoint,
 but we're not there yet).

Agreed.

So there are some not-so-obscure situations, judging by your examples
above. Ho-humm.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach
GM: Alberto Bozzo
Reg: Dornach, Landkreis Muenchen
HRB Nr. 43632 WEEE Registernr: 129 19551


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120719175310.gf23...@aftab.osrc.amd.com

Re: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 01:33:42PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
 On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 13:19 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
 
   What about older kernels? Say you installed Fedora 18 with an older
   kernel that doesn't know what to select? Having the distro tell the
   kernel what it needs seems to me the easiest for the 99% case.
  
  How is the above not telling the kernel what it needs?  I'm confused how
  the location of such a file makes it's functionality and usefulness
  differ...  Quite possible I missed what you meant originally, but it
  sounds like we're talking about the same thing?
 
 The point is, the user wont have to think What distro am I running? and
 what version am I running?. I don't even know what version of the disto
 I'm currently running (Debian testing).

 The point is, the current running distro supplies what is needed from
 the kernel in order to work properly. The user does not need to 'select'
 it. They would only have to select a 'add my distro min configs'.

Distros aren't stationary things.  I mean, some of them certainly aim
for that goal, but userspace and kernels get upgraded all the time.  So
if this distro-Kconfig file is provided by some package _other_ than the
kernel the distros are going to have a bit of a hassle keeping track of
it.

 A developer working with a user could just say, select disto config
 without needing to know what distro the user has.
 
 What happens if someone does a yum update, and the kernel requirement
 changes slightly. The yum update should update
 this /usr/share/Linux/Kconfig. But it's still set at Fedora X. The
 kernel can not be updated for these slight changes.

I'm not quite following what you mean in the yum update case, sorry.

  Also, I'm not very convinced the 99% are going to be wanting to install
  shiny new versions of a distro with a kernel older than what the distro
  ships with.  I could be very wrong, but it seems like in-general the
  whole premise of this RFC was geared towards using new kernels on
  distros.
 
 There are times when the update breaks something. A user may backport to
 an older kernel where their Gizmo worked. I've done this to get webcams
 working. I know I'm not the 99%, but the rational for my operation was a
 99% thing to do: Crap, I upgraded my kernel and now my webcam doesn't
 work. Oh well, download an older version and boot that one.

Upgraded the kernel within the confines of that distro, right?  So you
go back to what was already installed and working.  You don't go back
arbitrarily far just to see what happens.  I would think a reasonably
crafted distro config would work in those scenarios.

josh


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120719175649.gf8...@zod.bos.redhat.com

Re: [opensuse-kernel] Re: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues

On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 19:34 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:

  I can pass the above to a allnoconfig, and the box will boot and allow
  ssh. Note, the reason for the serial config, is that this ktest run uses
  a serial port to see if the box booted. If the serial isn't there, then
  it thinks it failed.
 
 I agree with all this and you've explained this to me live already so
 you're preaching to the choir.

Yes, I know you know this already, as we discussed it in a pub over a
beer (choir practice). But this is a public forum on LKML (the church),
where I now have an audience of heathens. Convert! Convert! You are all
sinners!

 
 But it would be a lot faster/easier if users can select, let's call'em
 profiles which are not mutually exclusive and can speed up the
 configuration process. They can either be distro-specific or generic,
 selecting certain features you need.
 
 So configuring your kernel would be like shopping without paying too
 much attention to details. Let's look into the head of a person doing a
 config like that and read some of her thoughts :):
 
 Hm, ok, this new configurator is cool, a lot faster I gotta say... So,
 what do I need, ah, yes, it is an AMD laptop so from vendors I select
 AMD, then I probably need ext4, then I'd like to do packet filtering
 so I should enable iptables.. Oh, I'd like to do tracing too so let's
 enable tracing and trust Steven with the options he's added by default,
 then I need ahci, I'd also like to do encrypted partitions so I'll
 enable device mapper with crypto... 
 
 So all those things could be selectable from that profiles menu without
 having to go through the gazillion of little suboptions and having to
 read help (which is sometimes completely helpless) and figure out do I
 need it or not.
 
 And this would simplify configuration a lot. IMHO, anyway.
 

I totally agree with this. It would be nice to have a profile list where
you can pick and chose what you have installed:

network
nfs
ext3
serial
xen
kvm
etc etc

Where you can pick and choose what general features you want and it
selects all the core infrastructure to get those features usable. It
wouldn't select the device modules needed, you will still need to select
what hardware you have. But it gets most of the work done for you.

But this still doesn't solve Linus's initial request. That would be a
single option that makes your distro boot, and work well. Again, that
option wont have the drivers needed, but it will enable all the core
infrastructure that you need.

Going with my /usr/share/Linux/Kconfig, this could use the profile
options as well. And just select those that are required. But then
again, Linus did want a minimum selection of stuff.

Side note (again), IIRC, select has a bug. If you have Config X
selecting config Y but Y depends on Z, if you enable X, it will enable Y
without enabling Z. I think there were some patches to address this, but
I don't remember.

-- Steve



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1342720646.12353.67.ca...@gandalf.stny.rr.com

Re: [opensuse-kernel] Re: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 01:57:26PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
 Yes, I know you know this already, as we discussed it in a pub over a
 beer (choir practice). But this is a public forum on LKML (the church),
 where I now have an audience of heathens. Convert! Convert! You are all
 sinners!

Ah, gotcha.

[ … ]

 But this still doesn't solve Linus's initial request. That would be a
 single option that makes your distro boot, and work well. Again, that
 option wont have the drivers needed, but it will enable all the core
 infrastructure that you need.

Oh I'm being additive here. You'll have feature profiles for the stuff
we talk above and distro profiles which solve Linus' issue. Basically
one coarse-grained config option will either select a feature which has
a lot of small subfeatures of which some are sane and want to be enabled
by default when selecting the topfeature.

Or a distro-specific feature which could itself select other
topfeatures.

I haven't tried this in reality to actually be able to say that a
tree-like configure approach would actually make sense and work. It
sounds like a nice idea though, especially having the hierarchical
structure. :)

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach
GM: Alberto Bozzo
Reg: Dornach, Landkreis Muenchen
HRB Nr. 43632 WEEE Registernr: 129 19551


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120719180914.gg23...@aftab.osrc.amd.com

Re: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues

On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 13:56 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:

 Distros aren't stationary things.

Exactly my point.

   I mean, some of them certainly aim
 for that goal, but userspace and kernels get upgraded all the time.  So
 if this distro-Kconfig file is provided by some package _other_ than the
 kernel the distros are going to have a bit of a hassle keeping track of
 it.

How about a directory called /usr/share/Linux/Kconfig.d/

Then have anything installed that needs to work correctly put in its
minimum (must have) requirement configs of the kernel.

Say you are running Debian, and decide to try out systemd. If you set up
your system to run that it would add a file called:

/usr/share/Linux/Kconfig.d/systemd.conf

or something, and this would select things like CGROUPS and the like. We
could make the kernel build select all, or individual files in this
directory. All for the 'make my distro work' or individual for a 'I want
part of my distro to work' option.



 Upgraded the kernel within the confines of that distro, right?  So you
 go back to what was already installed and working.  You don't go back
 arbitrarily far just to see what happens.  I would think a reasonably
 crafted distro config would work in those scenarios.

A reasonable one, but still not the minimum.

One issue with Linus's proposal is that he's asking us to focus on the
99%. But the 99% of who? Because 99% of Linux users do not compile their
own kernels, so he must be asking about the 99% of Linux users that
compile their own kernels. This 99% does not just simply compile their
kernels, but only want to compile the absolutely necessary stuff. That
is, they want their kernels not to include anything they are not using.

A reasonable config would probably need to include a lot that's not
used.

-- Steve



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1342721620.12353.75.ca...@gandalf.stny.rr.com

Re: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues

2012-07-19 Thread Paul Bolle

On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 13:19 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
 kconfig already spits out warnings for symbols being selected that
 don't exist.

Does it? Since when does it do that? Or do you mean select in a more
general way (not just meaning Kconfig's select statement)?


Paul Bolle


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1342722036.26179.40.camel@x61.thuisdomein

Re: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 08:20:36PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
 On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 13:19 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
  kconfig already spits out warnings for symbols being selected that
  don't exist.
 
 Does it? Since when does it do that? Or do you mean select in a more
 general way (not just meaning Kconfig's select statement)?

I believe Alan was more correct than me when he said it was 'make
oldconfig' that produced the warnings.

josh


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120719182235.gg8...@zod.bos.redhat.com

Re: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues

2012-07-19 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@redhat.com wrote:
 On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 08:20:36PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
 On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 13:19 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
  kconfig already spits out warnings for symbols being selected that
  don't exist.

 Does it? Since when does it do that? Or do you mean select in a more
 general way (not just meaning Kconfig's select statement)?

 I believe Alan was more correct than me when he said it was 'make
 oldconfig' that produced the warnings.

Kconfig does spit out warnings for selecting things with unmet dependencies.
But does anyone care?

[...checking logs...]

Oh, only 12 warnings in the v3.5-rc7 builds. Not that bad as my gut feeling
said...

warning: (ETRAX_USB_HOST  MOUSE_APPLETOUCH  MOUSE_BCM5974 
MOUSE_SYNAPTICS_USB  JOYSTICK_XPAD  TABLET_USB_ACECAD 
TABLET_USB_AIPTEK  TABLET_USB_HANWANG  TABLET_USB_KBTAB 
TABLET_USB_WACOM  TOUCHSCREEN_USB_COMPOSITE  INPUT_ATI_REMOTE2 
INPUT_KEYSPAN_REMOTE  INPUT_POWERMATE  INPUT_YEALINK 
INPUT_CM109) selects USB which has unmet direct dependencies
(USB_SUPPORT  USB_ARCH_HAS_HCD): 10 warnings in 2 logs
warning: (IWLWIFI  IWLEGACY  ATH5K  ATH9K  ATH9K_HTC 
CARL9170_LEDS) selects MAC80211_LEDS which has unmet direct
dependencies (NET  WIRELESS  MAC80211  LEDS_CLASS): 10 warnings
in 2 logs
warning: (LOCKDEP  FAULT_INJECTION_STACKTRACE_FILTER  LATENCYTOP
 KMEMCHECK) selects FRAME_POINTER which has unmet direct
dependencies (DEBUG_KERNEL  (CRIS || M68K || FRV || UML || AVR32 ||
SUPERH || BLACKFIN || MN10300) || ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS): 10
warnings in 2 logs
warning: (MPC836x_RDK  MTD_NAND_FSL_ELBC  MTD_NAND_FSL_UPM)
selects FSL_LBC which has unmet direct dependencies (FSL_SOC): 9
warnings in 2 logs
warning: (SINGLE_MEMORY_CHUNK) selects NEED_MULTIPLE_NODES which has
unmet direct dependencies (DISCONTIGMEM || NUMA): 9 warnings in 2 logs
warning: (COMPAT) selects COMPAT_BINFMT_ELF which has unmet direct
dependencies (COMPAT  BINFMT_ELF): 3 warnings in 1 logs
warning: (DRM) selects DMA_SHARED_BUFFER which has unmet direct
dependencies (EXPERIMENTAL): 3 warnings in 1 logs
warning: (DRM_RADEON_KMS  DRM_I915  STUB_POULSBO  FB_BACKLIGHT
 USB_APPLEDISPLAY  FB_OLPC_DCON  ASUS_LAPTOP  SONY_LAPTOP 
THINKPAD_ACPI  EEEPC_LAPTOP  ACPI_CMPC  SAMSUNG_Q10 
APPLE_GMUX) selects BACKLIGHT_CLASS_DEVICE which has unmet direct
dependencies (HAS_IOMEM  BACKLIGHT_LCD_SUPPORT): 3 warnings in 1
logs
warning: (IA64) selects PM which has unmet direct dependencies
(PM_SLEEP || PM_RUNTIME): 4 warnings in 1 logs
warning: (MOUSE_APPLETOUCH  MOUSE_BCM5974  MOUSE_SYNAPTICS_USB 
JOYSTICK_XPAD  TABLET_USB_ACECAD  TABLET_USB_AIPTEK 
TABLET_USB_HANWANG  TABLET_USB_KBTAB  TABLET_USB_WACOM 
TOUCHSCREEN_USB_COMPOSITE  INPUT_ATI_REMOTE2  INPUT_KEYSPAN_REMOTE
 INPUT_POWERMATE  INPUT_YEALINK  INPUT_CM109  RC_ATI_REMOTE 
IR_IMON  IR_MCEUSB  IR_REDRAT3  IR_STREAMZAP  DRM_USB) selects
USB which has unmet direct dependencies (USB_SUPPORT 
USB_ARCH_HAS_HCD): 5 warnings in 1 logs
warning: (PLATFORM_AT32AP) selects HAVE_NET_MACB which has unmet
direct dependencies (NETDEVICES  ETHERNET): 3 warnings in 1 logs
warning: (PREEMPT  DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP) selects PREEMPT_COUNT which
has unmet direct dependencies (COLDFIRE): 5 warnings in 1 logs

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say programmer or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/camuhmdwunmatvf3sefwbtrfczwy01rdzvcx_htwe2q62rpc...@mail.gmail.com

Re: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 02:13:40PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
 On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 13:56 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
 
  Distros aren't stationary things.
 
 Exactly my point.
 
I mean, some of them certainly aim
  for that goal, but userspace and kernels get upgraded all the time.  So
  if this distro-Kconfig file is provided by some package _other_ than the
  kernel the distros are going to have a bit of a hassle keeping track of
  it.
 
 How about a directory called /usr/share/Linux/Kconfig.d/
 
 Then have anything installed that needs to work correctly put in its
 minimum (must have) requirement configs of the kernel.
 
 Say you are running Debian, and decide to try out systemd. If you set up
 your system to run that it would add a file called:
 
 /usr/share/Linux/Kconfig.d/systemd.conf
 
 or something, and this would select things like CGROUPS and the like. We
 could make the kernel build select all, or individual files in this
 directory. All for the 'make my distro work' or individual for a 'I want
 part of my distro to work' option.

That sounds like a pretty good idea, aside from the fact that now your
config is determined by 1) what is currently installed on your system
and 2) people that don't maintain the kernel.

1 is obviously a great thing once you have a stable working set of
packages you use daily, but wouldn't it kind of suck to have to rebuild
the kernel just to install some new package?  I mean... say you wanted
to now use an NFS mount, but you didn't have nfs-utils previously
installed.  So you install it, and it plops the kconfig file in
/usr/share but oops, you have to rebuild the kernel and reboot because
that module isn't built.  Of course I'm extrapolating possibly the worst
usage case here, but it will still happen.

2... yeah.  I don't really know if that is going to pan out, but I am
ever hopeful.  I'd be mostly concerned with people that are coding
userspace applications using every whiz-bang kernel feature.  Or not
paying attention at all to the kernel after the initial file creation
and the options going stale (don't follow renames, etc).


  Upgraded the kernel within the confines of that distro, right?  So you
  go back to what was already installed and working.  You don't go back
  arbitrarily far just to see what happens.  I would think a reasonably
  crafted distro config would work in those scenarios.
 
 A reasonable one, but still not the minimum.

The definition of minimum seems to be what we're disagreeing on.  I'm
approaching it from minimum for a default install of the distro
release.  OK, that and maybe a few common case usages (like NFS, CIFS,
etc).  You seem to be approaching it from literally bare minimum.

 One issue with Linus's proposal is that he's asking us to focus on the
 99%. But the 99% of who? Because 99% of Linux users do not compile their
 own kernels, so he must be asking about the 99% of Linux users that
 compile their own kernels. This 99% does not just simply compile their
 kernels, but only want to compile the absolutely necessary stuff. That
 is, they want their kernels not to include anything they are not using.
 
 A reasonable config would probably need to include a lot that's not
 used.

Perhaps.  I thought getting it reasonable would benefit more people,
even at the cost of some smaller bloat than bare minimum.  I don't think
either of us are really wrong, it's more a matter of who is really going
to use this and why I guess.

josh


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120719183645.gh8...@zod.bos.redhat.com

Re: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues

2012-07-19 Thread Paul Bolle

On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 20:49 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
  I believe Alan was more correct than me when he said it was 'make
  oldconfig' that produced the warnings.
 
 Kconfig does spit out warnings for selecting things with unmet dependencies.
 But does anyone care?
 
 [...checking logs...]
 
 Oh, only 12 warnings in the v3.5-rc7 builds. Not that bad as my gut feeling
 said...

Well, that's yet another issue but anyhow. That number of warnings
should presumably drop to (almost) zero if those weren't warnings but
errors. Has that ever been tried?


Paul Bolle


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1342724136.26179.44.camel@x61.thuisdomein

Re: [opensuse-kernel] Re: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues

2012-07-19 Thread Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 07:53:10PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
 On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 10:06:44AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
  On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Borislav Petkov b...@amd64.org wrote:
  
   Seriously, this helps only in the cases where the stuff the distro
   actually needs is in modules. So, there probably are obscure situations
   where you need to enable stuff which is bool and not M.
  
  Sadly, not obscure at all.
  
  Most of the *drivers* are modules, but most of the distro config
  options are indeed booleans (or, if tristate, =y).
  
  Even driver-wise, there are some things that are often =y, even though
  you generally don't want them.
 
 Tell me about it. I'm always pissed off when someone thinks his stuff is
 very important and sets his sacred option to be =y/=m by default so the
 wider audience can at least compile-test it while the majority of the
 machines don't actually need it.
 
 A more coarse-grained config where most of the stuff is off by default
 could take care of that probably.
 
  PCMCIA? Not even *laptops* have that shit any more, but having
  built-in cardbus support almost certainly helps in a distro kernel for
  booting of certain odder cases.
 
 Yeah, distros need the one-size-fits-all thing so they have to enable
 *everything*.
 
  Xen support? Odd partition tables? All the different AGP versions?
  Many of us couldn't care less, but again, it makes sense in the actual
  distro kernel, even if it does *not* necessarily make sense in a
  personalized one.
 
 Yep.

I proposed something that would solve some of this - but not during
compile time but rather during boot-time
[http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/99.html]
(interestingly enough hpa was first to propose it 10 years ago :-)

The goal is turn built-in components in well, unloadable components.
That way you won't have at least that much stuff laying around not being
used. Not the full silver bullet, but at least it gets some of this
stuff out of the way and you don't have to worry about the extra
stuff that was built-in.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120719184249.ga6...@phenom.dumpdata.com

Bug#679750: Lenovo G360: ALPS Touchpad Recognized as PS/2 Generic Mouse(with newly dmesg information)

2012-07-19 Thread Seth Forshee

On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 10:15:57AM +0800, littlebat wrote:
 In the Windows 7 guest OS, the touchpad Lenovo pointing device
 disappeared from the hardwares list. And, the log file in Ubuntu 11.10
 has the content below: 
 y@y-PC:~$ cat ./psmouse-reverse/reverse.log 
 S ff
 R fe
 S ff
 R fe
 S ff
 R fe
 S ed
 R fe

From the outset this doesn't look right. When reset is sent (0xff) the
touchpad should respond with and acknowledge (0xfa) and a couple more
bytes. Something obviously isn't working right, but I'm not sure what.

The only suggestion I have is to start debugging and try to see what's
going wrong. Is the data from the guest OS getting to the hardware okay,
and vice versa? Are you sure you've got the correct device?

Seth


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120719194740.GA21315@ubuntu-530U

Processed: Re: Bug#682144: linux-image-3.2.0-3-amd64: flash videos unviewable, invalid command stream on radeon

2012-07-19 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:

 reassign 682144 src:linux 3.2.21-3
Bug #682144 [src] linux-image-3.2.0-3-amd64: flash videos unviewable, invalid 
command stream on radeon
Warning: Unknown package 'src'
Bug reassigned from package 'src' to 'src:linux'.
No longer marked as found in versions 3.2.21-3.
Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #682144 to the same values 
previously set
Bug #682144 [src:linux] linux-image-3.2.0-3-amd64: flash videos unviewable, 
invalid command stream on radeon
Marked as found in versions linux/3.2.21-3.
 thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
682144: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=682144
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.134273219214340.transcr...@bugs.debian.org

Re: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 06:30:47PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
 
  Well, yes.  I was thinking it would be more like:
  
  distro/Kconfig.fedora
  menuconfig FEDORA
  if FEDORA
  config FEDORA_16
 select WHATEVER
  config FEDORA_17
 
 Nope you need
 
 distro/everyarchtheyship/everykernelvarianttkeyship(smp,largemem,arm
 boards)/Kconfig
 
 which for some distros is over 20 per release and the end user wouldn't
 have a cat in hells chance of knowing which to pick.

20?  Debian's kernel package currently lists 17 architectures (11
source architectures) and 44 variants (excluding PREEMPT_RT and s390
install tape).  (But 'only' 31 will be in the next release, as even
Debian is capable of letting go of an architecture.)

But, assuming a native build (a whole weekend's worth of fun on m68k!)
we already know the target architecture and most of the other
variations can be chosen automatically similarly to localmodconfig.
We already do something like that (choosing between the pre-built
variants) at distribution install time, after all.

 For the end user case you need the distro to plonk the right file in the
 right place and be done with it, once they do that the rest is
 bikeshedding a ten line Makefile rule.
 
This might work well for future releases; is there not a need to
make this work for past releases too?

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking.
  - Albert Camus


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120719211357.gz1...@decadent.org.uk

Re: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues

2012-07-19 Thread david


On Thu, 19 Jul 2012, Josh Boyer wrote:


On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 02:13:40PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:

On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 13:56 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:


Distros aren't stationary things.


Exactly my point.


  I mean, some of them certainly aim
for that goal, but userspace and kernels get upgraded all the time.  So
if this distro-Kconfig file is provided by some package _other_ than the
kernel the distros are going to have a bit of a hassle keeping track of
it.


How about a directory called /usr/share/Linux/Kconfig.d/

Then have anything installed that needs to work correctly put in its
minimum (must have) requirement configs of the kernel.

Say you are running Debian, and decide to try out systemd. If you set up
your system to run that it would add a file called:

/usr/share/Linux/Kconfig.d/systemd.conf

or something, and this would select things like CGROUPS and the like. We
could make the kernel build select all, or individual files in this
directory. All for the 'make my distro work' or individual for a 'I want
part of my distro to work' option.


That sounds like a pretty good idea, aside from the fact that now your
config is determined by 1) what is currently installed on your system
and 2) people that don't maintain the kernel.

1 is obviously a great thing once you have a stable working set of
packages you use daily, but wouldn't it kind of suck to have to rebuild
the kernel just to install some new package?  I mean... say you wanted
to now use an NFS mount, but you didn't have nfs-utils previously
installed.  So you install it, and it plops the kconfig file in
/usr/share but oops, you have to rebuild the kernel and reboot because
that module isn't built.  Of course I'm extrapolating possibly the worst
usage case here, but it will still happen.


the alturnative to this is what? compile everything just in case you need 
it some time in the future?


we already have some tools (vmware) that check for the proper kernel 
config when they startup, and if the appropriate stuff isn't there they 
ask for the root password and compile the modules.



2... yeah.  I don't really know if that is going to pan out, but I am
ever hopeful.  I'd be mostly concerned with people that are coding
userspace applications using every whiz-bang kernel feature.  Or not
paying attention at all to the kernel after the initial file creation
and the options going stale (don't follow renames, etc).


it would be determined by the distro maintainers who maintain the kernel 
config for that distro.


David Lang


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.02.1207191357360.20...@asgard.lang.hm

Re: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 02:04:11PM -0700, da...@lang.hm wrote:
 On Thu, 19 Jul 2012, Josh Boyer wrote:
 
 On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 02:13:40PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
 On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 13:56 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
 
 Distros aren't stationary things.
 
 Exactly my point.
 
   I mean, some of them certainly aim
 for that goal, but userspace and kernels get upgraded all the time.  So
 if this distro-Kconfig file is provided by some package _other_ than the
 kernel the distros are going to have a bit of a hassle keeping track of
 it.
 
 How about a directory called /usr/share/Linux/Kconfig.d/
 
 Then have anything installed that needs to work correctly put in its
 minimum (must have) requirement configs of the kernel.
 
 Say you are running Debian, and decide to try out systemd. If you set up
 your system to run that it would add a file called:
 
 /usr/share/Linux/Kconfig.d/systemd.conf
 
 or something, and this would select things like CGROUPS and the like. We
 could make the kernel build select all, or individual files in this
 directory. All for the 'make my distro work' or individual for a 'I want
 part of my distro to work' option.
 
 That sounds like a pretty good idea, aside from the fact that now your
 config is determined by 1) what is currently installed on your system
 and 2) people that don't maintain the kernel.
 
 1 is obviously a great thing once you have a stable working set of
 packages you use daily, but wouldn't it kind of suck to have to rebuild
 the kernel just to install some new package?  I mean... say you wanted
 to now use an NFS mount, but you didn't have nfs-utils previously
 installed.  So you install it, and it plops the kconfig file in
 /usr/share but oops, you have to rebuild the kernel and reboot because
 that module isn't built.  Of course I'm extrapolating possibly the worst
 usage case here, but it will still happen.
 
 the alturnative to this is what? compile everything just in case you
 need it some time in the future?

Why do people swing from one extreme to another so quickly?  Surely
there is some middle ground.

 we already have some tools (vmware) that check for the proper kernel
 config when they startup, and if the appropriate stuff isn't there
 they ask for the root password and compile the modules.
 
 2... yeah.  I don't really know if that is going to pan out, but I am
 ever hopeful.  I'd be mostly concerned with people that are coding
 userspace applications using every whiz-bang kernel feature.  Or not
 paying attention at all to the kernel after the initial file creation
 and the options going stale (don't follow renames, etc).
 
 it would be determined by the distro maintainers who maintain the
 kernel config for that distro.

Erm... not in Steven's scheme.  At least I don't think distro kernel
maintainers are going to willingly crawl through every application
package that might depend on a kernel feature being enabled and maintain
those files across X number of packages.

josh


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120719223519.gi8...@zod.bos.redhat.com

Re: [RFC] Simplifying kernel configuration for distro issues