From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner on gitlab.com https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/3592#note_2297105036 I get the part that the configshook will protect from unwanted outputs already, but I think the issue at hand here is a different matter. They want to protect the automotive kernel from unwanted module enablement by doubly disabling it. I.e., mark it as disabled for automotive even though it's also disabled on RHEL already. That's different from how we handle common/EL/Fedora today, and makes me wonder how much/whether automotive actually inherits RHEL configs. If we need that kind of isolation, maybe automotive configs are better handled as a whole new flavor? It's probably safer that someone should check the delta between rhel and automotive every now and then than later finding that RHEL changed the a random knob that wasn't pinned and automotive didn't like it. I'm just brainstorming here, at least for now. I'm not pushing in favor of A or B. Food for thoughts. -- _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list -- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
