Re: Kernel configurations for Fedora

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 02:14:08PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:46:00AM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
> > The Fedora kernel has had roughly the same system for generating
> > the kernel configuration for a very long time. There are a series
> > of files listing configuration choices (CONFIG_FOO=y, CONFIG_FOO
> > is not set etc.) that get combined to generate the final config
> > files. This has gotten unsustainable for several reasons:
> > 
> > - When the system was first introduced, the only supported
> > arches were x86_32 and x86_64. Fedora now supports enough
> > other arches that we have a config-$arch-generic in addition to
> > config-generic
> > - It's difficult to tell what is actually enabled since
> > there are several layers of configuration combining (I have to
> > look at config-generic, then config-$arch-generic, then
> > the final config-$specific file to see what the option actually
> > is)
> > - Keeping the files organized requires manual work and pruning
> > 
> > I've been thinking about alternatives to the existing config
> > generation. One proposal was to take advantage of the upstream
> > kernel now supporting config fragments and keep some part of
> > the fedora configuration upstream. This would have the disadvantage
> > of requiring the configuration to be kept in sync with upstream.
> > 
> > Another option is to switch to a system of generation where
> > each configuration option is kept in a separate file. There
> > is no sorting or organization necessary. This would result
> > in a lot of small files for all the arches Fedora supports though.
> 
> Hi Laura,
> 
> Just to throw it out there,  RHEL has been using the one option per file
> mechanism for years now with success.  Minimizes the maintenance and
> conflicts.  ( I know you already know that, just wanted to publicly state
> that).
> 
> The volume of files is large, but it is hidden away and you only package the
> resulting kernel.config files into the src.rpm.

I'm quite fond of the was things were done in el7 too, but I'm biased,
since I'm the one that implemented it. ;)

Honestly though, part of the reason for doing it was because those various
stacked config hunks were *terrible* to deal with in el6, and people
constantly touched the wrong one, had no idea how the end configs were
actually compiled, etc., and I don't think anyone has ever gotten it wrong
with the approach used now in el7. In the end, the srpm uses a merged
config for each kernel build/arch, so it's simple for people doing their
own custom builds to modify the right config, and the git tree heirarchy
still makes it pretty obvious what's enabled where -- the path from single
files to kernel-foo.config is pretty straight-forward and obvious. I don't
think I have anything bad to say about this approach, other than "there
are a lot of files", and the most difficult part was the initial
conversion, making sure no end result config values differred from the
prior method.

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod@xxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
kernel mailing list -- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora General Discussion]     [Older Fedora Users Archive]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Coolkey]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [USB]     [Asterisk PBX]

  Powered by Linux