On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:56:50 -0400, Josh Boyer said:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 01:33:42PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > 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 a
>
> But we'll first have to make 'select' to actually work, right? It
> currently doesn't resolve the dependencies of the selected configs, so it
> will just produce some very broken config.
We could restrict "select" to only select symbols with no dependencies,
or *exactly* the same dependenci
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So this has long been one of my pet configuration peeves: as a user I
> am perfectly happy answering the questions about what kinds of
> hardware I want the kernel to support (I kind of know that), but many
> of the "support infrastructure" questions ar
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 06:30:47PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
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 w
On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 18:35 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > >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
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 poin
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Josh Boyer 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 th
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
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/e
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 wrote:
> > >
> > > Seriously, this helps only in the cases where the stuff the distro
> > > actually needs is in m
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 l
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.
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Josh Boyer 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 tha
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 jus
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 UNSUBSCRI
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
>
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,
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 think
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 se
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 10:06:44AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Borislav Petkov 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 ena
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/e
> > 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 subje
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
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
> 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)/Kconf
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 mi
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Borislav Petkov 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 th
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 localmodco
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 s
On 17.7.2012 10:03, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:26 PM, 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
On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 08:43 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Steven Rostedt 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 allmo
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 t
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 the
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Steven Rostedt 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
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 di
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 t
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> In addition to the "minimal distro settings", we might also have a few
> "common platform" settings, so that you could basically do a "hey, I
> have a modern PC laptop, make it pick the obvious stuff that a normal
> person needs, like USB st
* da...@lang.hm wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> >* da...@lang.hm wrote:
> >
> >>>Anybody who says "I want to run Fedora without SELINUX
> >>>because I do my own security development" is by *definition*
> >>>not relevant to the whole feature.
> >>
> >>Don't mistake the exam
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* da...@lang.hm wrote:
Anybody who says "I want to run Fedora without SELINUX
because I do my own security development" is by *definition*
not relevant to the whole feature.
Don't mistake the example for the feature. the SELINUX thing
is just an examp
* da...@lang.hm wrote:
> > Anybody who says "I want to run Fedora without SELINUX
> > because I do my own security development" is by *definition*
> > not relevant to the whole feature.
>
> Don't mistake the example for the feature. the SELINUX thing
> is just an example. As Alan Cox comment
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:26 PM, 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 selec
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:26 PM, 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 yo
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:26 PM, 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.
Th
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 9:43 AM, wrote:
The problem is that you can't select the Fedora profile and then unselect
SELINUX, so the profile will do you no good.
Guys, stop it now.
Your "problem" isn't what any sane person cares about, and isn't wha
> Select the profile and then fixup the config the normal way.
>
> If what the admin wants is incompatible with the profile, admin doesn't
> select the profile.
Thats ugly - "distro except..." is a standard thing you ask users to do
for debugging.
However providing you separate the initial profi
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Alan Cox wrote:
Select the profile and then fixup the config the normal way.
If what the admin wants is incompatible with the profile, admin doesn't
select the profile.
Thats ugly - "distro except..." is a standard thing you ask users to do
for debugging.
However providi
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 9:43 AM, wrote:
>
> The problem is that you can't select the Fedora profile and then unselect
> SELINUX, so the profile will do you no good.
Guys, stop it now.
Your "problem" isn't what any sane person cares about, and isn't what
I started the RFC for.
Seriously. NOBODY
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 03:09:12PM -0700, da...@lang.hm wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
Replying to David's message (sorry for delay) I fear having a bunch of
miniconfig files will end up in a mess. Maybe (maybe (!) I don't know s
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 03:09:12PM -0700, da...@lang.hm wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>
> >Replying to David's message (sorry for delay) I fear having a bunch of
> >miniconfig files will end up in a mess. Maybe (maybe (!) I don't know since
> >I've no time at moment to read
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 03:09:12PM -0700, da...@lang.hm wrote:
3. by simply combining miniconfig files, you can combine sets of
pre-defined options
Wait, David, I'm lost. These miniconfigs should live somewhere on
my home directory (if they are out
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 03:09:12PM -0700, da...@lang.hm wrote:
>
> 3. by simply combining miniconfig files, you can combine sets of
> pre-defined options
Wait, David, I'm lost. These miniconfigs should live somewhere on
my home directory (if they are out of mainline tree)?
Cyrill
--
T
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
Replying to David's message (sorry for delay) I fear having a bunch of
miniconfig files will end up in a mess. Maybe (maybe (!) I don't know since
I've no time at moment to read kconfig code and I'm not sure if this
is right direction at all) it would
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 11:18:48PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 01:17:16PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > > Yes, something like KVMTOOL_TEST_ENABLE except not a make target but a
> > > Kconfig option.
> >
> > It is a config option too - "make kvmconfig" simply enables it
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 01:17:16PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > Yes, something like KVMTOOL_TEST_ENABLE except not a make target but a
> > Kconfig option.
>
> It is a config option too - "make kvmconfig" simply enables it.
Right, so how about something more concrete in this whole discussion:
M
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 03:12:05PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> We have "make kvmconfig" in the KVM tool tree that pretty much does
>> that automatically. There's nothing tools/kvm specific about it so I
>> guess you could merge that separ
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 03:12:05PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> We have "make kvmconfig" in the KVM tool tree that pretty much does
> that automatically. There's nothing tools/kvm specific about it so I
> guess you could merge that separately.
Yes, something like KVMTOOL_TEST_ENABLE except not a m
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 07:48:27PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 04:43:32PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
For example to enable "PCI driver for virtio devices" I need to go to
Device Drivers -> Virtio drivers, while I think it
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 07:48:27PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 04:43:32PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > For example to enable "PCI driver for virtio devices" I need to go to
> > Device Drivers -> Virtio drivers, while I think it would be great to
> > have everything
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 04:43:32PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> For example to enable "PCI driver for virtio devices" I need to go to
> Device Drivers -> Virtio drivers, while I think it would be great to
> have everything virt. related in Virtualization section.
Actually, we need something mor
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 03:12:05PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:41:21PM +0200, richard -rw- weinberger wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Myklebust, Trond
> >> wrote:
> >> > We could at least make se
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> - distro/Kconfig:
>>
>> config DISTRO_REQUIREMENTS
>> bool "Pick minimal distribution requirements"
>>
>> choice DISTRO
>> prompt "Distribution"
>> depends on DISTRO_REQUIREMENTS
>>
>> config FEDORA
>>
I am just guessing here, but I think the distros would want a required list
and a recommended list
--
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Keimpe de Jong
(UndiFineD)
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:41:21PM +0200, richard -rw- weinberger wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Myklebust, Trond
> wrote:
> > We could at least make selection of a minimal set of drivers for the
> > more common virtualised platforms a lot easier.
> > Right now, you need to hunt throug
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 12:33:51AM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> How about we start cutting down on the options and start saying "a Linux
> system will provide feature x and y - always ...".
> Stuff like (and I'm just pulling random stuff out here) - ASLR, seccomp,
> 250HZ minimum etc etc.. We coul
On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 13:37 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So this has long been one of my pet configuration peeves: as a user I
> am perfectly happy answering the questions about what kinds of
> hardware I want the kernel to support (I kind of know that), but many
> of the "support infrastructure"
On 07/13/12 14:55, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:50:25PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
>
> > But just removing all the certainly unused macros probably wouldn't have
> > made a noticeable difference to anyone using those defconfig files
> > anyway.
>
> My point is that I don't thin
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012, Jesper Juhl wrote:
We are going to end up with a million+ (or something like that) "config
" options that are going to have to be kept up-to-date
regularly...
Do we really want that?
Maybe we do, maybe we don't - I'm not saying anything either way - just
pointing it out.
I
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So this has long been one of my pet configuration peeves: as a user I
> am perfectly happy answering the questions about what kinds of
> hardware I want the kernel to support (I kind of know that), but many
> of the "support infrastructure" questions ar
On 07/13/2012 10:37 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So this has long been one of my pet configuration peeves: as a user I
> am perfectly happy answering the questions about what kinds of
> hardware I want the kernel to support (I kind of know that), but many
> of the "support infrastructure" questions
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 02:17:30PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
> >
> > As long as you don't mind these being added after the fact, I suppose
> > it would be workable. The reason I say that is sometimes, it even catches
> > *us*
> > by surpris
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
Oh dear. I would expect Fedora to say that they require SELinux,
thereby making it unusable by anyone doing LSM development.
Oh, *absolutely*.
These options would *not* be meant for people do
On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 17:55 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> My point is that I don't think there's many people actually using them.
> (maybe more on the niche platforms, but x86[64] ? I'm sceptical they're used
> at all)
I guess you're right. Personally, I tend to start my journeys in self
compiled ke
I always thought that the x86 defconfig file was the one that Linus
used for his primary machine.
-Tony
--
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+8mbbl9mrx
On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 17:02 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> I wish defconfig was actually something useful like this, instead of..
> what the hell is it exactly ? No-one even seems to agree, other than
> "random selection of options, many of which were removed n years ago"
As for the "many of which wer
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:50:25PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> But just removing all the certainly unused macros probably wouldn't have
> made a noticeable difference to anyone using those defconfig files
> anyway.
My point is that I don't think there's many people actually using them.
(maybe m
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Myklebust, Trond
wrote:
> We could at least make selection of a minimal set of drivers for the
> more common virtualised platforms a lot easier.
> Right now, you need to hunt through 30+ different menus in order to find
> what you need to run in a basic KVM virtua
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>
> Oh dear. I would expect Fedora to say that they require SELinux,
> thereby making it unusable by anyone doing LSM development.
Oh, *absolutely*.
These options would *not* be meant for people doing odd things and
experienting with config
On 7/13/2012 1:37 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So this has long been one of my pet configuration peeves: as a user I
> am perfectly happy answering the questions about what kinds of
> hardware I want the kernel to support (I kind of know that), but many
> of the "support infrastructure" questions ar
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
>
> As long as you don't mind these being added after the fact, I suppose
> it would be workable. The reason I say that is sometimes, it even catches
> *us*
> by surprise. We recently found out our virtualisation guys started
> using sch_htb fo
On 07/13/2012 02:37 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Would something like this make sense to people? I really think that
"How do I generate a kernel config file" is one of those things that
keeps normal people from compiling their own kernel. And we *want*
people to compile their own kernel so that th
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:02 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
> I wish defconfig was actually something useful like this, instead of..
> what the hell is it exactly ? No-one even seems to agree, other than
> "random selection of options, many of which were removed n years ago"
It's just to difficult to upd
On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 13:37 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So this has long been one of my pet configuration peeves: as a user I
> am perfectly happy answering the questions about what kinds of
> hardware I want the kernel to support (I kind of know that), but many
> of the "support infrastructure"
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 01:37:41PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> The point I'm slowly getting to is that I would actually love to have
> *distro* Kconfig-files, where the distribution would be able to say
> "These are the minimums I *require* to work".
As long as you don't mind these being ad
So this has long been one of my pet configuration peeves: as a user I
am perfectly happy answering the questions about what kinds of
hardware I want the kernel to support (I kind of know that), but many
of the "support infrastructure" questions are very opaque, and I have
no idea which of the them
84 matches
Mail list logo
