On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 12:21:49PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: > On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 09:12 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 07:47:41AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > >FE is em8300. Where is his "xen" flavour? > > > > > > You'd have to ask scop. Maybe it didn't build, don't know. > > > > If it builds for xen0 it builds for xen. > > I'm not aware of any problems building it, but nor am I knowledgeable > enough about Xen to be able to tell whether shipping this particular > module package for the FC5 "xen" variant makes sense in the first place > even if it compiles fine. So I just followed what GFS and friends do > and didn't build for "xen". Maybe that's a bug? If GFS didn't build for xen, but for xen0, it's a bug in GFS or the associated buildsystem. Maybe exactly the design issues I'm referring to of hardwiring the flavours in the specfile/src.rpm, or maybe something else, in any case a bug. :) > Some info about the different xen variants from the POV of for which of > them in general it makes sense to ship hardware device drivers such as > this one would be nice. WAG: xen0 and xen yes, xenU no? And if the > module is not a hardware device driver but something else, then in > general ship+build for all xen*? Rules of thumb: o Everything *should* build under xen and xen0, they are both domain0 kernels (but see below) o Not everything even makes sense under xenU (e.g. nvidia-graphics), this is the guest kernel. If something does not work with xen or xen0 it's either a bug in these flavours (forgetting to export something, or exporting an updated symbol/signature of say 2.6.18 on 2.6.17, this has bitten me quite some times like the premature _xmit_lock* changes) or a bug in the upstream kernel module project. But wrt xen vs xen0: iff it builds on one of them then it builds on the other. That's 99.9% sure. Just for reference, here are the differences between those two: -CONFIG_HIGHMEM4G=y -# CONFIG_HIGHMEM64G is not set +# CONFIG_HIGHMEM4G is not set +CONFIG_HIGHMEM64G=y @@ -3078,2 +3079,2 @@ -CONFIG_XEN_BLKDEV_BACKEND=y -CONFIG_XEN_NETDEV_BACKEND=y +CONFIG_XEN_BLKDEV_BACKEND=m +CONFIG_XEN_NETDEV_BACKEND=m @@ -3103,0 +3105,8 @@ +# CONFIG_NOHIGHMEM is not set +# CONFIG_HIGHMEM4G is not set +CONFIG_HIGHMEM64G=y +CONFIG_HIGHMEM=y +CONFIG_XEN_BLKDEV_BACKEND=m +CONFIG_XEN_NETDEV_BACKEND=m +CONFIG_XEN_BLKDEV_FRONTEND=m +CONFIG_XEN_NETDEV_FRONTEND=m -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpRHlDcJMiLf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
