On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On (Wed) 06 May 2015 [11:45:38], Harald Hoyer wrote: >>>> >>>>> One possibility is to enable kdbus by default until alpha phase. >>>> >>>> The problem with that is all systemd testing is useless once we're out >>>> of Alpha. Similar things have happened in the past. >>>> >>> >>> Which is precisely the point. >>> >>> Alpha needs to be released with this applied and enabled to be useful to >>> anybody. ( and this needs to be applied and enabled up to that point ) >> >> Only if it's being proposed as a feature of that release and to be >> default, this isn't part of the above proposal. >> >>> Around that point 4.3 should have been released ( or about to be released ) >>> and either kdbus will be included or it should be clear that it will be >>> included in 4.4 or never but surrounding bugs around the changes to Dracut >>> implementing integration with kdbus will need to have started to receive >>> wider exposure and tested and hopefully have most bugs flushed out otherwise >>> you will be caught in spiral of delays if the intent is to include atleast >>> Dracut with kdbus/integration changes in RHEL 8 >> >> I think we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves, the proposal is >> including it in the mainline Fedora kernel to enable easier testng, >> and anything outside of Fedora isn't really our problem when we're >> looking at rawhide TBH. > > Well, rawhide and rawhide only so it does play into what happens at > branch time. But yes, I think the proposal seems to cover this well > enough and we can worry about it more when we come to that point. > >> Let's get patches in to enable it be more easily tested first... > > I'm waiting on the next posting of them before we bring them in. It > sounds like the proposed item 4 is already covered by the "kdbus" > mechanism that systemd looks for so as long as that doesn't change, I > think we're OK. Of course, the systemd mechanism changed. Upstream now builds the kdbus code in and requires kdbus=0 on the command line to disable it. If I understand correctly, systemd should fall back to userspace dbus if that is specified or if the kdbus.ko module is missing. Harald, given one of the conditions for carrying this was testing both kdubs and non-kdbus setups, is your team prepared to do that with the change in place in upstream systemd now? > As soon as I see the refreshed patchset I'll look at getting them in. The kdbus developers have indicated they believe the code is ready and that there should not be any ABI breaks at this point. I'm working with them to make sure we're all set, but assuming everything holds from before we will likely look at adding the code to rawhide soon. josh _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
