From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36007) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jKVkG-0002pR-5s for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2020 19:29:05 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jKVkE-0001pj-4Y for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2020 19:29:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:60012) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jKVkE-0001pZ-1O for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2020 19:29:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jKVkD-0000sw-SI for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2020 19:29:01 -0400 Subject: [bug#40190] Linux-Libre 5.6 Resent-Message-ID: From: Vagrant Cascadian In-Reply-To: <87tv24mnbo.fsf@ponder> References: <87k13gqhrw.fsf@ponder> <87sgi0le3g.fsf@ponder> <87mu87btng.fsf@yucca> <87mu7xg34t.fsf@ponder> <87h7y5g30m.fsf@ponder> <874ku5fkoq.fsf@ponder> <87369ovbpu.fsf@devup.no> <87tv24mnbo.fsf@ponder> Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2020 16:28:07 -0700 Message-ID: <877dywno8o.fsf@ponder> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Marius Bakke , 40190@debbugs.gnu.org Cc: Mark H Weaver --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain On 2020-03-31, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2020-03-31, Marius Bakke wrote: >> Vagrant Cascadian writes: >> >>> On 2020-03-30, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>>> And the second patch, switching to 5.5... >>> >>> And a third, rougher, less well tested patch switching to 5.6... which >>> could obviously be squashed into the previous patches and maybe skip 5.5 >>> altogether. >> >> 5.5 is not an LTS kernel, so going straight to 5.6 sounds like the >> right thing to do. However... >> >>> diff --git a/gnu/packages/aux-files/linux-libre/5.5-arm.conf b/gnu/packages/aux-files/linux-libre/5.6-arm.conf >>> similarity index 100% >>> rename from gnu/packages/aux-files/linux-libre/5.5-arm.conf >>> rename to gnu/packages/aux-files/linux-libre/5.6-arm.conf ... >> >> This does not seem right. Surely there are _some_ configuration changes >> in 5.6? > > Hence the "rough" patch. > > I honestly don't feel solid on all the configuration changes that need > to happen, so haven't been particularly thorough on auditing those. > > Running through "make oldconfig" prompted me with many options about > things I didn't really have a good grasp of, so the 5.5 changes at > essentially just the 5.4*.conf copied to 5.5*.conf, and applying the > copying the resulting .config from building the kernel into git... > > I could do the same for 5.6 again blindly taking the new defaults... or > if someone could help with auditing the config updates, that would be > great! I pushed linux-libre 5.6 to master *without* setting it as the default linux-libre version; only added linux-libre-arm64-generic-5.6 and linux-libre-arm-generic-5.6 based on it. Attached are the remaining patches to switch it to the default. I still haven't thoroughly audited the config changes; this simply copies 5.4-*.conf to 5.6-*.conf in the first patch, and in the second patch updates them to 5.6 produced by building the package. By splitting it into two patches, this allows diffing from the old 5.4 configs, but should maybe be squashed if this gets pushed to master. Thanks for your review! live well, vagrant --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYKAB0WIQRlgHNhO/zFx+LkXUXcUY/If5cWqgUCXofGiAAKCRDcUY/If5cW qke8AQCYixMMLBS15klJBuFDpxjv/DBEZ2KAQdk1ifmq3QJVOwEAvO0wU9ds4aWY HA8dNpgwOx7kfcsjiDGEfZpy3D2XGQ8= =0/Ti -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--