| 1 |
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Nuno J. Silva <nunojsilva@×××××××.pt> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Sorry, what's the difference between cheching =y and =m? I thought those |
| 4 |
> were both part of the kernel config... |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I'm talking about /proc/config.gz, which only reflects .config at the |
| 7 |
time that the kernel was built. So, build with config=n, then set |
| 8 |
config=m and install the modules but don't replace the kernel. Now |
| 9 |
/proc/config.gz still says n, but the module is there and works fine. |
| 10 |
And this is in fact the easiest way to add a module for something that |
| 11 |
you didn't realize you needed at kernel build time - you can do this |
| 12 |
on a running system. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
>> You can also check /usr/src/linux/.config, but the sources might not |
| 16 |
>> correspond to the running kernel, or the kernel on the next reboot, or |
| 17 |
>> whatever. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Ok, what do these checks do right now? I thought that they were checking |
| 20 |
> .config... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I dunno. I wasn't talking about how the current config checks work. |
| 23 |
The question was whether it was possible to determine how the kernel |
| 24 |
was configured - I was answering in general. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> So you're saying that it's perfectly OK to check for =y or =n, but that |
| 28 |
> it's somehow more difficult to check for =m? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
My previous paragraph was referring to checking config.gz - and that |
| 31 |
is unreliable for modules. /usr/src/linux/.config is unreliable for |
| 32 |
the reason I stated in the next paragraph - it doesn't necessarily |
| 33 |
reflect the running kernel. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> This won't even solve the issue, even if some people may actually prefer |
| 36 |
> a pre-built kernel. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Depends on the issue. There isn't just one issue under discussion in |
| 39 |
this thread. A fairly bulletproof kernel solves a lot of issues in |
| 40 |
general as it can have newbie-safe defaults (like just about anything |
| 41 |
in any config check). There is a reason that most distros don't need |
| 42 |
config checks. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
> But, definitely, fatal checks should not be a default, there are way too |
| 45 |
> many scenarios. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Yup - just trying to point out some of the perils. As I said there |
| 48 |
are lots of 80% solutions. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Rich |
Archives