From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ig0-f180.google.com (mail-ig0-f180.google.com [209.85.213.180]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37BD860670 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 09:51:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igbzc4 with SMTP id zc4so123223015igb.0 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 02:51:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:content-type:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=xx8yG+7YIrw7/l0q516pWI56sku72R/8I/dmPNQdkN4=; b=UCx4jZh08g4CIs8S+tcfzMASNcUrOawTvViy1GAo65lIJsmuz9pUv68NNtPOrVk7yz SbFIGQJoTUOPyFlvTbL5OQcsRJMvx4Ty60sC/hi8sxnUd/K3jczv6Fjwzl0b7zHTjQAv /zmGQyvD39DZPKkJX5+DvkbbX3PEJvLMt1gVeeMH0n8GymNeH6rTAFIJANUh5lrkGjda 4xYPSqS1GWSmkZATqcWLermfRLSFSWoggNAiwRfxGIasOzdQGF6Iny7kb64pwL/7icp8 uda/5+2nv9rlmAcMOwWdvvbS+xTyJmhe7kHw3NDTnuP4gYcnA92sckvQ/1BznYvXuuwJ Aj9Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkP40izE2FFMEgZcmqdIfMWy7Fo8JgDRJtAedEt5VNhAHnIQEQpxKdL+B6Bp+GN4xGAesI0 X-Received: by 10.107.164.70 with SMTP id n67mr13851302ioe.8.1434621118576; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 02:51:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p57A579B2.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [87.165.121.178]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id h10sm4580730iod.44.2015.06.18.02.51.56 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 18 Jun 2015 02:51:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1434621114.29550.41.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: Bruce Ashfield Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:51:54 +0200 In-Reply-To: <55802926.7020009@windriver.com> References: <1434370643.9085.98.camel@intel.com> <557F2BF1.5000605@windriver.com> <1434441993.9085.152.camel@intel.com> <55802926.7020009@windriver.com> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: OpenEmbedded Subject: Re: KCONF_AUDIT_LEVEL + kernel_configcheck X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 09:51:59 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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.