On 21/02/2024 15:13, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> These options are needed by some Linux distributions (e.g: Fedora), so
How ZRAM is needed? Why Fedora cannot boot without it? Debian, which I
use on my arm64 boards, does not have any problem.
I kind of repeat comments from similar patch earlier:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
About XFS: I don't think it is needed to boot anything.
This is a defconfig, not a distro config. Please don't make it distro.
I will gladly support things needed by systemd or equivalent, but not
unusual filesystems needed by distro.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> writes:
> On 21/02/2024 15:13, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> These options are needed by some Linux distributions (e.g: Fedora), so
>
> How ZRAM is needed? Why Fedora cannot boot without it? Debian, which I
> use on my arm64 boards, does not have any problem.
>
I haven't used Debian in ages so I don't know why is not a problem there.
But Fedora is using zram by default and if is not enabled in the kernel,
the boot is delayed considerably due the systemd zram-generator.
> I kind of repeat comments from similar patch earlier:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
>
Ah! I forgot that posted the same change for exynos_defconfig some time
ago and I see that you nacked. Now I understand why all my Exynos boards
are in a drawer.
> About XFS: I don't think it is needed to boot anything.
>
How are you supposed to mount a XFS rootfs without at least have support
for it as a module?
> This is a defconfig, not a distro config. Please don't make it distro.
>
It seems that's a Debian distro config though, since you brought Debian as
an example.
> I will gladly support things needed by systemd or equivalent, but not
> unusual filesystems needed by distro.
>
Fair. But then you should probably remove all the other filesystems that are
already in the defconfig then?
$ grep "_FS=" arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | wc -l
15
Or it is OK to have support for btrfs, overlayfs, even plan9 fs but XFS is
where you draw the line??
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
--
Best regards,
Javier Martinez Canillas
Core Platforms
Red Hat
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 03:22:38PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 21/02/2024 15:13, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> > These options are needed by some Linux distributions (e.g: Fedora), so
>
> How ZRAM is needed? Why Fedora cannot boot without it? Debian, which I
> use on my arm64 boards, does not have any problem.
Is it relevant in any way?
I'm sure Debian can boot without MEMORY_HOTREMOVE, or BRIDGE, or
NUMA_BALANCING, or BPF_JIT, or NFS_FS, yet all of them are enabled. Let
me know if you want hundreds more examples.
> I kind of repeat comments from similar patch earlier:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
>
> About XFS: I don't think it is needed to boot anything.
Just like 9P_FS, NFS or UBIFS.
> This is a defconfig, not a distro config. Please don't make it distro.
>
> I will gladly support things needed by systemd or equivalent, but not
> unusual filesystems needed by distro.
It's a defconfig. It's whatever people want it to be. Or we need to come
up with a clearly defined set of rules of what is acceptable in that
defconfig or not, and prune every option that isn't.
Maxime
On 21/02/2024 15:48, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 03:22:38PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 21/02/2024 15:13, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>> These options are needed by some Linux distributions (e.g: Fedora), so
>>
>> How ZRAM is needed? Why Fedora cannot boot without it? Debian, which I
>> use on my arm64 boards, does not have any problem.
>
> Is it relevant in any way?
Yes, because it is justification why we are doing it. Each commit is
supposed to explain "why" and the explanation here is not enough.
>
> I'm sure Debian can boot without MEMORY_HOTREMOVE, or BRIDGE, or
> NUMA_BALANCING, or BPF_JIT, or NFS_FS, yet all of them are enabled. Let
> me know if you want hundreds more examples.
So if there is any bug, you are allowed to add new one? If there is any
silly option, you are allowed to add new one?
Feel free to propose dropping of any irrelevant options.
>
>> I kind of repeat comments from similar patch earlier:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
>>
>> About XFS: I don't think it is needed to boot anything.
>
> Just like 9P_FS, NFS or UBIFS.
NFS is often used on targets, e.g. my board farm, but also by other people.
UBIFS was added recently because one device was using it - you needed
it. 9P_FS looks unnecessary.
>
>> This is a defconfig, not a distro config. Please don't make it distro.
>>
>> I will gladly support things needed by systemd or equivalent, but not
>> unusual filesystems needed by distro.
>
> It's a defconfig. It's whatever people want it to be. Or we need to come
> up with a clearly defined set of rules of what is acceptable in that
> defconfig or not, and prune every option that isn't.
So that's the rule I am commenting from time to time. defconfigs are not
distro configs. These are reference hardware configs and debugging
configs. I was working in distro so trust me - they do stuff differently
and they not need XFS in our defconfig for anything.
Best regards,
Krzysztof