On 05.05.2015 19:50, Josh Boyer wrote: > Hi All, > > Harald and I were recently talking about kdbus and how it plays into > Fedora. Right now, the kernel-playground COPR is carrying the kdbus > patches, but that isn't widely used and isn't included in a broad test > base. Obviously our distribution is heavily entwined with D-Bus and we > were looking to see if it was possible to help kdbus testing and > development by doing some kind of integration within Fedora itself. I > promised Harald I would talk it over with the other Fedora kernel > maintainers and after a brief discussion we came up with the following > possible proposal. > > If Fedora were to carry kdbus in any form, the following things would > be required: > > 1) There would be a single canonical location to track kdbus > development. After talking with Harald, that should be the upstream > tree that gregkh is using to submit patches. > > 2) Harald's team (systemd, etc) would commit to testing the system > both with and without kdbus active. Obviously we do not want to > enforce reliance on something as core critical as kdbus while it is > still being actively developed upstream. That could cause a lot of > deviation down the road and it isn't the aim here. > > 3) kdbus would only be carried in the rawhide branch until it is > merged upstream. As a concrete example, if kdbus was not merged in > the upstream kernel at the time rel-eng creates the F23 branches, then > Fedora 23 will never get kdbus. It will be carried in rawhide and > rawhide only until it's accepted upstream. The maintainers actually > hope this does get merged but we want to make sure we are prepared to > drop this without causing too much trouble if needed. > > 4) After discussing a bit with the rest of the Fedora kernel > maintainers, we would carry an additional patch that would require > 'kdbus-enabled' to be specified before the kernel would allow kdbus to > be loaded (or similar mechanism). This would focus the main testing > effort for all the default images to remain as they are today, while > easily allowing the plumbing layer developers access to kdbus for > their enablement testing. > > These conditions would hopefully help the Fedora kernel maintainers > avoid some of the pitfalls of carrying a large chunk of out of tree > code and if they're all met we feel fairly comfortable with doing > this. We wanted to send this out for a bit wider discussion and > review before proceeding with it, and I agreed to start this thread so > here we are. > > Harald, does the above look like what you were envisioning when we > talked earlier? > > josh > Looks very good except for point 4, where we wanted to enable kdbus by default and have a "kdbus=0" command line option. CC'ing the kdbus folks... _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
