On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 08:56:28 -0800 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 08:16:32AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 17:19:10 -0800 > > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 09:58:11AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > > > On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 08:33:07 -0800 > > > > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 01:13:06AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > > > > > Hi Geert, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 09:31:50 +0100 > > > > > > Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Paul, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 5:33 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 08, 2023 at 12:22:15AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > > > > > > > > BTW, maybe CONFIG_BOOT_CONFIG_EMBED is better to select this. > > > > > > > > > (or at least recommend to enable this) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Like this? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanx, Paul > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit d09a1505c51a70da38b34ac38062977299aef742 > > > > > > > > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Date: Sat Jan 7 08:09:22 2023 -0800 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bootconfig: Default BOOT_CONFIG_FORCE to y if BOOT_CONFIG_EMBED > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When a kernel is built with CONFIG_BOOT_CONFIG_EMBED=y, the intention > > > > > > > > will normally be to unconditionally provide the specified kernel-boot > > > > > > > > arguments to the kernel, as opposed to requiring a separately provided > > > > > > > > bootconfig parameter. Therefore, make the BOOT_CONFIG_FORCE Kconfig > > > > > > > > option default to y in kernels built with CONFIG_BOOT_CONFIG_EMBED=y. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The old semantics may be obtained by manually overriding this default. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Suggested-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig > > > > > > > > index 0fb19fa0edba9..97a0f14d9020d 100644 > > > > > > > > --- a/init/Kconfig > > > > > > > > +++ b/init/Kconfig > > > > > > > > @@ -1379,6 +1379,7 @@ config BOOT_CONFIG > > > > > > > > config BOOT_CONFIG_FORCE > > > > > > > > bool "Force unconditional bootconfig processing" > > > > > > > > depends on BOOT_CONFIG > > > > > > > > + default y if BOOT_CONFIG_EMBED > > > > > > > > help > > > > > > > > With this Kconfig option set, BOOT_CONFIG processing is carried > > > > > > > > out even when the "bootconfig" kernel-boot parameter is omitted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your patch, which is now commit 6ded8a28ed80e4cc > > > > > > > ("bootconfig: Default BOOT_CONFIG_FORCE to y if BOOT_CONFIG_EMBED"). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After this change, an all{mod,yes}config kernel has: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_BOOT_CONFIG_FORCE=y > > > > > > > CONFIG_BOOT_CONFIG_EMBED=y > > > > > > > CONFIG_BOOT_CONFIG_EMBED_FILE="" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Will this actually work? I haven't tried booting such a kernel yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, good question. It is same as when you boot the kernel with 'bootconfig' > > > > > > but do not add the bootconfig file to initrd. You may see below message > > > > > > on boot log, but kernel boots normally. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > 'bootconfig' found on command line, but no bootconfig found > > > > > > > > > > > > (Maybe it is better to fix the message, because if BOOT_CONFIG_FORCE=y, this > > > > > > will be shown without 'bootconfig' on command line.) > > > > > > > > > > I just tried it again, and for me it just silently ignores the bootconfig > > > > > setup. Which is what I recall happening when I tried it when creating > > > > > the patch. > > > > > > > > > > Here is the .config file pieces of interest: > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_BOOT_CONFIG=y > > > > > CONFIG_BOOT_CONFIG_FORCE=y > > > > > CONFIG_BOOT_CONFIG_EMBED=y > > > > > CONFIG_BOOT_CONFIG_EMBED_FILE="" > > > > > > > > > > Anyone else seeing something different? > > > > > > > > Hmm, from the code, I think you'll see that message in early console log. > > > > > > > > In init/main.c: > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_BOOT_CONFIG > > > > /* Is bootconfig on command line? */ > > > > static bool bootconfig_found = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BOOT_CONFIG_FORCE); > > > > static size_t initargs_offs; > > > > #else > > > > ---- > > > > And > > > > ---- > > > > static void __init setup_boot_config(void) > > > > { > > > > ... > > > > strscpy(tmp_cmdline, boot_command_line, COMMAND_LINE_SIZE); > > > > err = parse_args("bootconfig", tmp_cmdline, NULL, 0, 0, 0, NULL, > > > > bootconfig_params); > > > > > > > > if (IS_ERR(err) || !bootconfig_found) > > > > return; > > > > > > > > /* parse_args() stops at the next param of '--' and returns an address */ > > > > if (err) > > > > initargs_offs = err - tmp_cmdline; > > > > > > > > if (!data) { > > > > pr_err("'bootconfig' found on command line, but no bootconfig found\n"); > > > > return; > > > > } > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > Thus, if CONFIG_BOOT_CONFIG_FORCE=y, the process passes the below check > > > > > > > > if (IS_ERR(err) || !bootconfig_found) > > > > return; > > > > > > > > But since we have an empty 'data', the error should be printed. > > > > > > And you are quite right, the runs without data files did get me this: > > > > > > 'bootconfig' found on command line, but no bootconfig found > > > > > > Please accept my apologies for my confusion. > > > > No problem :), so should we skip this message if CONFIG_BOOT_CONFIG_FORCE=y, > > because user may not pass 'bootconfig'? > > > > Or, may be we can make it; > > > > "Skip bootconfig, because no bootconfig data found." > > > > so that user can notice they forget to set up bootconfig data? > > Good point, the current message could be quite confusing. Me, I already > knew what was happening, so I just looked for the change in console-log > output. ;-) > > How about something like this? > > "No bootconfig data provided, so skipping bootconfig" > > But as you say, keeping the current message in kernels that have been > built with CONFIG_BOOT_CONFIG_FORCE=n. That sounds good to me. OK, let me update that. Thank you, > > Thanx, Paul > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > > > Thanx, Paul > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanx, Paul > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gr{oetje,eeting}s, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Geert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But > > > > > > > when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. > > > > > > > -- Linus Torvalds > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > -- > > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> -- Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>