1 |
On 07/01/2013 03:23 PM, Greg KH wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 08:45:16PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
3 |
>>>> Q: What about my stable server? I really don't want to run this |
4 |
>>>> stuff! |
5 |
>>>> |
6 |
>>>> A: These options would depend on !CONFIG_VANILLA or |
7 |
>>>> CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL |
8 |
>>> What is CONFIG_VANILLA? I don't see that in the upstream kernel tree |
9 |
>>> at all. |
10 |
>>> |
11 |
>>> CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL is now gone from upstream, so you are going to |
12 |
>>> have a problem with this. |
13 |
>> Earlier I mentioned "2) These feature should depend on a non-vanilla / |
14 |
>> experimental option." which is an option we would introduce under the |
15 |
>> Gentoo distribution menu section. |
16 |
> Distro-specific config options, great :( |
17 |
|
18 |
I'm not sure what you mean by "distro-specific", but suppose people want |
19 |
BFQ? Why can't we have it in gentoo-sources. It is totally disabled by |
20 |
not selecting CONFIG_BFQ. Selecting it is no different than emerging |
21 |
pf-sources with the same other options ported over. By your logic, we |
22 |
should not distribut pf-sources either. The truth of the matter is, |
23 |
there are forks of the vanilla kernel out there. Are you suggesting we |
24 |
distribute none of them? |
25 |
|
26 |
NOTE: hardened-sources is its own world. There is not level of turning |
27 |
on/off options that get you back to a vanilla kernel. |
28 |
|
29 |
> |
30 |
>>>> which would be disabled by default, therefore if you keep this |
31 |
>>>> option the way it is on your stable server; it won't affect you. |
32 |
>>> Not always true. Look at aufs as an example. It patches the core |
33 |
>>> kernel code in ways that are _not_ accepted upstream yet. Now you all |
34 |
>>> are running that modified code, even if you don't want aufs. |
35 |
>> Earlier I mentioned "3) The patch should not affect the build by |
36 |
>> default."; if it does, we have to adjust it to not do that, this is |
37 |
>> something that can be easily scripted. It's just a matter of embedding |
38 |
>> each + block in the diff with a config check and updating the counts. |
39 |
> Look at aufs as a specific example of why you can't do that, otherwise, |
40 |
> don't you think that the aufs developer(s) wouldn't have done so? |
41 |
> |
42 |
> The goal of "don't touch any other kernel code" is a very good one, but |
43 |
> not always true for these huge out-of-tree kernel patches. Usually that |
44 |
> is the main reason why these patches aren't merged upstream, because |
45 |
> those changes are not acceptable. |
46 |
> |
47 |
> So be very careful here, you are messing with things that are rejected |
48 |
> by upstream. |
49 |
> |
50 |
> greg k-h |
51 |
> |
52 |
|
53 |
|
54 |
-- |
55 |
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. |
56 |
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] |
57 |
E-Mail : blueness@g.o |
58 |
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA |
59 |
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA |