From: Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com>
To: Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@windriver.com>
Cc: OpenEmbedded <openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
Subject: Re: KCONF_AUDIT_LEVEL + kernel_configcheck
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:51:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1434621114.29550.41.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55802926.7020009@windriver.com>
On Tue, 2015-06-16 at 09:48 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On 2015-06-16 04:06 AM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > I cannot say how much noise it would create in practice, but at least I
> > had one specific case where I was using a non-hardware configuration not
> > supported by the kernel and would have appreciated a warning about
> > that ;-}
>
> This is good feedback, and I am planning to expose more of the output,
> including some dependency information (since without giving hints on how
> to fix a warning .. more warnings are not all that helpful :)
FWIW, my use case is the meta-security-smack layer, which is intended to
be BSP independent, but needs to turn on certain kernel configuration
options:
https://github.com/01org/meta-intel-iot-security/tree/master/meta-security-smack/recipes-kernel/linux-yocto/linux-yocto
This depends on a recent enough kernel or with the right patches
back-ported, which is hard to test for in that layer, so warnings from
the kernel configuration phase would be useful.
Ideally, the warning should tell the user where the unsupported
configuration option came from, because that's where the README is which
explains the expectations of the layer regarding the underlying BSP.
Speaking of that layer, I understand that not all kernels are called
"linux-yocto", and not all kernels support configuration fragments, so
the linux-yocto_%.bbappend is not ideal, but the best I could come up
with.
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-18 9:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-15 12:17 KCONF_AUDIT_LEVEL + kernel_configcheck Patrick Ohly
2015-06-15 19:48 ` Bruce Ashfield
2015-06-16 8:06 ` Patrick Ohly
2015-06-16 13:48 ` Bruce Ashfield
2015-06-18 9:51 ` Patrick Ohly [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1434621114.29550.41.camel@intel.com \
--to=patrick.ohly@intel.com \
--cc=bruce.ashfield@windriver.com \
--cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.