[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: kms in defconfig

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, wrote:
> as a end-user creating my own configs, I use the defaults as a guide to
> understand when something moves from "we think it's a good idea" to "things
> really need this"

I'm not talking about the defaults in the Kconfig files themselves, I'm
talking about the millions of "*_defconfig" files that have tons of random
default values.

> there's a _lot_ of stuff that goes in that is useful only is some situations,
> and the help text frequently doesn't help understanding what's really needed
> vs what the author of that feature _thinks_ is really needed (containers are a
> perfect example, they aren't needed in 99% of current systems, but it's
> actually _hard_ to really disable them completely)

Oh, I agree that the help text is not sufficient, and having new Kconfig
options have sane default values is good.

> you mention starting from a distro config, but most distro configs have a
> _huge_ number of things enabled that aren't needed for any particular box.

I think starting from the distro config and then turning off all modules
("sed s/=m/=n/") is a good way to start off. Then enable just the modules
that are actually loaded.

Of course, you then need to be aware of the things you may want even if
they're not connected right now (eg things like FAT support). And
sometimes it's hard to map "module name" -> "config options that need to
be enabled".

So yes, it would be good to automate it:

> If a tool was available to detect the hardware and create a config tailored
> for the box, this use for a default config would go away

Yeah, I've wished for that.

Although I personally don't find that the actual hardware to be the
biggest issue (since there are usually just a few options for that, and
they are mostly not confusing). Instead, it's the issues about knowing
which software components (netfilter, filesystems, auditing, POSIX ACL's)
that you really want.

It tends to be easy to just enable them all, but if you want a nice
efficient build, that's very much against the point.

So having some kind of (probably inevitably fairly complex) script that
you could run to get a config would be good. The problem is that the
script would need to be distributed with the kernel, yet it would often
also have some nasty distro issues.


 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-28 19:21    [W:0.060 / U:1.012 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site