[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:0.028 / U:12.048 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site