On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 09:29:53PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 05:40:27PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >> > On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 11:54:50 -0700 > >> > Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > >> >> This is no longer needed by any userspace tools, so it's safe to > >> >> remove. > >> > > >> > Makes my FC6 test box not boot - can't find /dev/root. Then when I go > >> > back to plain old mainline (2.6.35-rc5) and run `make oldconfig', the > >> > .config change sticks: > >> > > >> > @@ -106,8 +106,7 @@ > >> > CONFIG_LOG_BUF_SHIFT=17 > >> > CONFIG_HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK=y > >> > # CONFIG_CGROUPS is not set > >> > -CONFIG_SYSFS_DEPRECATED=y > >> > -CONFIG_SYSFS_DEPRECATED_V2=y > >> > +# CONFIG_SYSFS_DEPRECATED_V2 is not set > >> > CONFIG_RELAY=y > >> > CONFIG_NAMESPACES=y > >> > # CONFIG_UTS_NS is not set > >> > > >> > and the box still won't boot. > >> > >> The reason FC6 doesn't boot is there is a userspace tool > >> I believe in the initrd that cares about symlinks when it should > >> not. > > > > Anyone happen to know which tool it is? I remember we had had issues > > with FC3 around this area, but I thought we resolved them, so it's > > supprising to me that FC6 has issues. > > It was something in the initrd, that didn't like the symlinks. It > has been a year or more since I looked at it. At that point I just > enabled SYSFS_DEPRECATED and moved on. If it was just the symlinks for the block devices, we might be able to reduce the amount of code hanging around. When I return from Europe next week, I'll try to dig into this. > >> What is more interesting is that currently there is a bug in > >> 2.6.35-rc5 where rmmod <netdriver> modprobe <netdriver> will in fact > >> fail. There was an inadvertent regression and no one has noticed or > >> complained. I spotted it by code review just a little bit ago and I > >> haven't had a chance to write and test the fix yet. > >> > >> If the code is going to start bitrotting and no one is going to > >> notice or care simply removing the code instead of subjecting users > >> to weird unexpected breakage seems like a responsible thing to do. > > > > Yeah, that's what prompted this removal. After the s390 guys said that > > they were all good to go, I figured no one else would have problems with > > it :) > > > > If it turns out there still are issues with older userspaces like FC6 > > that we can't resolve, I have no problem dropping this patch and then we > > will have to fix up the regression. > > I still have to test it but it looks like a one liner. Actually two lines > now that I have to fix the error in symlink creation as well. Ah, that's good to hear, as I'm sure .35 will need this fix :) thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
