Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 26 Nov 2014 09:13:16 +0100 | From | Richard Weinberger <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86: defconfig: Enable CONFIG_FHANDLE |
| |
Am 26.11.2014 um 01:55 schrieb Greg KH: > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 01:11:01AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: >> Am 26.11.2014 um 00:51 schrieb Greg KH: >>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 12:36:52AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: >>>> systemd has a hard dependency on CONFIG_FHANDLE. >>> >>> It's been this way for a very long time, why is this suddenly an issue? >> >> Because nobody cared to create patch and just called systemd names? ;-) > > systemd documents what is needed in order for it to boot properly quite > well, I don't see why this needs to be here.
Because not every kernel developer knows the contents of the damn systemd readme file. Face it, systemd is common userspace and if a defconfig is unable to boot common userspace we have a problem.
Yesterday I was hunting down a regression in libvirt on the shiny new openSUSE 13.2, I had to build an older kernel. So I did a defconfig because I know that config has all drivers for my KVM setup. (No, I my laptop don't has to power to build the bloated .config from suse) But systemd went nuts (in terms of doing completely crap things beside of not spawning a getty). After one hour of painful systemd debugging I found out that I was missing CONFIG_FHANDLE.
I really don't understand why you are so opposed to that change. Let's make thing easier for us.
>>> Do these files even make any sense anymore? Who uses them? The distros >>> sure do not... >> >> Maybe I'm oldschool but I expect a defconfig kernel to be able to boot a >> recent distro. > > You are :) > How does the defconfig know your hardware in order to be able to find > the root disk properly? Video device? USB keyboard? and so on... > > I thought we were getting rid of the defconfig files entirely one of > these days, didn't some arches already do this?
Please don't.
Thanks, //richard
| |