| 1 |
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:19 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> please review this news item, seems we need one after all |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Here's a crazy idea: can we patch our kernel to let "make oldconfig" |
| 6 |
> default CONFIG_DEVTMPFS to true? Or better yet, request that this is |
| 7 |
> changed upstream? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I could see making that the default if there is no .config file |
| 10 |
present and a new one is being created, and perhaps upstream would |
| 11 |
support that since udev is popular. However, make oldconfig is |
| 12 |
usually used when you have a .config file and you just want to update |
| 13 |
it. In that case I don't think we should be changing settings - what |
| 14 |
if a user doesn't want this set? They'd have to remember to manually |
| 15 |
unset it every single time they compile a new kernel, as we'd be |
| 16 |
"helpfully" changing it back. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Not everybody uses udev. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Somebody already brought this up, but the main thing users need is |
| 21 |
notice for changes like this, and warnings. By all means mention in |
| 22 |
the warnings that their systems will be unbootable. And by all means |
| 23 |
let's cut down on spurious elog traffic otherwise. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Oh, here's another thought - when elog traffic gets sent out as email |
| 26 |
can the subject line be changed based on the most serious message in |
| 27 |
the log? That is, can a log-only email be distinguished from one that |
| 28 |
has a warning in it? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Rich |
Archives