From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45107) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1erORL-0005CA-Jc for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Mar 2018 08:40:11 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1erORF-0004ts-TB for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Mar 2018 08:40:07 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:58658) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1erORF-0004to-Pp for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Mar 2018 08:40:01 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1erORF-0008BJ-IW for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Mar 2018 08:40:01 -0500 Subject: [bug#30629] [PATCH 0/5] Detect missing modules in the initrd Resent-Message-ID: From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) References: <20180227141720.12513-1-ludo@gnu.org> <20180227222632.42bcf52c@scratchpost.org> <87tvu2w2vg.fsf@gnu.org> <20180227235027.00bc79b1@scratchpost.org> <20180301124655.72f6ca52@scratchpost.org> Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2018 14:39:39 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20180301124655.72f6ca52@scratchpost.org> (Danny Milosavljevic's message of "Thu, 1 Mar 2018 12:46:55 +0100") Message-ID: <87tvtz6hk4.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: Danny Milosavljevic Cc: 30629@debbugs.gnu.org Howdy! Danny Milosavljevic skribis: >> Also, when I replace kmod-minimal/static by kmod I get a massive number = of >> test failures. What I'm trying to say, in this case I think >> having an intermediate step kmod-minimal/static is the least of the evil= s... > > To clarify, the other "evils" would be to > > * Have a non-working intermediate state pushed to master, or > * Have to push all 14 patches (yours and mine) at the same time - with > overlooked bugs in it hitting us all at once. > > I prefer not to do these. Of course. What I was suggesting was to push =E2=80=9Cmy=E2=80=9D series f= irst, then rebase =E2=80=9Cyours=E2=80=9D on top of it without the kmod bits since we = can now do without it. How does that sound? (I understand it=E2=80=99s somewhat unfair. I wanted to submit my part bef= ore you started working on the rest, but you=E2=80=99re so fast that I just can= =E2=80=99t keep up. ;-)) > I think it's better to have kmod-minimal-static and my patchset in master > for a week in order to be reasonably sure that the linux-boot.scm > changes do what they are supposed to do (which is essentially the same > as before the patch - just loading no unnecessary modules :P). > > Also, loading dm-crypt and raid works just fine with it since the kernel > does it anyway (by calling us back). > > My commit message indicated that I used the regular kmod - but I was mist= aken > (in the commit message, not the actual source code). > I tried, but it doesn't work (or kmod-minimal-static even build) with the= newer > kmod (static), so I changed it back to the older one again. > > Also, kmod-minimal (not static) of the newer version doesn't work either = (depmod > fails with error code 127 with no message printed anywhere). > > The old kmod version is special because it's the last one to officially > support static linking. Let's just use old kmod-minimal-static as-is unt= il we > figure out what's up with newer ones (I don't have any ideas left about t= hat - > I don't even understand why it needs to be statically linked when, with t= he > integrated version, kmod doesn't end up in the initrd anyway. > I tried with the integrated version: Error 127). Honestly I feel it=E2=80=99ll be easier to deal with a small pure-Scheme implementation. > Did I mention it's great to be able to rollback to the previous system > generation in the grub boot menu? It's so great! :-) Ludo=E2=80=99.