On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 11:12 PM Jose Ignacio Tornos Martinez <jtornosm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > What is the problem with this? > In my opinion, it is risky to remove the kernel that is running, that is > the reason why I am trying to protect this. > If you try to remove or update (and the running kernel is removed), if the > kernel and modules are already preloaded in memory, it could not happen > anything but some extra action could be necessary or automatically started, > and even the new kernel could not boot. > Fedora and others are taking this into account with upper tools and declare > the running kernel as protected avoinding this action. But others > (i.e. openSUSE Tumbleweed) allow this behavior. As I replied in 1/2, I see an error like this: vagrant@opensuse-tumbleweed20231218:~> sudo rpm -i kernel-6.7.0_12924_g660a5f4a53e7-4.x86_64.rpm file /lib/modules/6.7.0-12924-g660a5f4a53e7/vmlinuz from install of kernel-6.7.0_12924_g660a5f4a53e7-4.x86_64 conflicts with file from package kernel-6.7.0_12924_g660a5f4a53e7-3.x86_64 You can proceed with 'rpm -i --force', but that is the user's responsibility if something bad happens. > It may only be a safety measure but it can also be beneficial to avoid > problems, just in case. > Besides, in this way, all the tested distributions would have the same > behavior. > > If it is ok, I will create a following version patch describing the problem > better and using indentation as you suggested for the other patch. No, not OK. > > Thanks > > Best regards > José Ignacio > -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
