From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCDF4C71157 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2025 06:48:11 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ref-manual: document KERNEL_SPLIT_MODULES variable To: docs@lists.yoctoproject.org From: "Dixit Parmar" X-Originating-Location: Pune, Maharashtra, IN (223.233.84.84) X-Originating-Platform: Linux Chrome 129 User-Agent: GROUPS.IO Web Poster MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 23:48:03 -0700 References: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <15419.1750488483008609101@lists.yoctoproject.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="XmikYUcZi6tE6uE7fxpa" List-Id: X-Webhook-Received: from li982-79.members.linode.com [45.33.32.79] by aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org with HTTPS for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2025 06:48:11 -0000 X-Groupsio-URL: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/docs/message/7128 --XmikYUcZi6tE6uE7fxpa Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 07:12 PM, Antonin Godard wrote: >=20 > On Wed Jun 18, 2025 at 3:19 PM CEST, Dixit Parmar via > lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: >=20 >> On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 06:30 PM, Antonin Godard wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >>> On Wed Jun 18, 2025 at 2:14 PM CEST, Dixit Parmar via >>> lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>> Will fix the ref->term typo and the take your suggestion on rewording. >>>>=20 >>>> There seem to be confusion related to the kernel package name, however= I >>>> feel >>>> it was additional information. I shall remove the mention of the kerne= l >>>> package name (keep the variable reference only) for simplicity in next >>>> version. >>>=20 >>> Looking forward to it! >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>> Yes, you would be able to install "all" the kernel-modules without >>>> bothering >>>> about KERNEL_SPLIT_MODULES. The issue is having autoload .conf file be= ing >>>> installed or not when KERNEL_MODULE_AUTOLOAD is having your modules li= sted >>>>=20 >>>> to >>>> be autoloader. When KERNEL_SPLIT_MODULES =3D 0 the .conf files for dri= ver >>>> autoload and probeconf is not getting generated. >>>=20 >>> This sounds like a bug to me, no? Why would someone expect setting >>> KERNEL_SPLIT_MODULES to 0 have the autoload files missing? >>>=20 >>> I ran a some tests. So when I set KERNEL_SPLIT_MODULES to 1, and >>> KERNEL_MODULE_AUTOLOAD to "xt_limit", a kernel-module-xt-limit.ipk pack= age >>>=20 >>> is >>> generated like so: >>>=20 >>> =E2=94=9C=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 etc >>> =E2=94=82=C2=A0=C2=A0 =E2=94=94=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 modules-load.d >>> =E2=94=82=C2=A0=C2=A0 =E2=94=94=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 xt_limit.conf >>> =E2=94=94=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 lib >>> =E2=94=94=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 modules >>> =E2=94=94=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 6.12.30-yocto-standard >>> =E2=94=94=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 kernel >>> =E2=94=94=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 net >>> =E2=94=94=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 netfilter >>> =E2=94=94=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 xt_limit.ko >>>=20 >>> When KERNEL_SPLIT_MODULES is set to 0, only one kernel-modules.ipk pack= age >>>=20 >>> is >>> generated, and does _not_ contain xt_limit.conf, but only xt_limit.ko. = To >>> me >>> this sounds like a bug, what do you think? >>=20 >> Exactly, that's the issue reported https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/sho= w_bug.cgi?id=3D15145 >> ( https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D15145 ) and I am f= ixing >> it here with this solution https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded= -core/message/218290 >> . >>=20 >>=20 >>> I would _not_ describe that behavior in the documentation for the >>> KERNEL_SPLIT_MODULES variables. >>=20 >> True, that's why the documentation does not mention anything about the >> conf files. >>=20 >>=20 >>> The fact that "kernel-modules" is still available when >>> KERNEL_SPLIT_MODULES =3D 1 >>> is simply because a "fake" kernel-modules.ipk package is generated, and >>> depends >>> on the other kernel-module-* packages - so you can ignore my remark in = my >>> previous message. >>=20 >> Which remark exactly?? >=20 > About the possibility to install "kernel-modules" both when > KERNEL_SPLIT_MODULES > is 0 or 1. I guess it doesn't hurt to add a note about that at the end of > the > definition: >=20 > """ > .. note:: >=20 > If :term:`KERNEL_SPLIT_MODULES` is set to 0, it is still possible to > install > all kernel modules at once by adding ``kernel-modules`` to > :term:`IMAGE_INSTALL`. The way it works is that a placeholder > "kernel-modules" package will be created and will depend on every other > individual kernel module packages. > """ >=20 > So there's no confusion. What do you think? That sounds good to me. I will append this note. Thanks for suggestion. >=20 >=20 > Antonin >=20 > -- > Antonin Godard, Bootlin > Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering > https://bootlin.com --XmikYUcZi6tE6uE7fxpa Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 07:12 PM, Antonin Godard wrote:
On Wed Jun 18, 2025 at 3:19 PM CEST, Dixit Parmar via lists.yoc= toproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 06:30 PM, Antonin Godard wrote:
On Wed Jun 18, 2025 at 2:14 PM CEST, Dixit Parmar via
list= s.yoctoproject.org wrote:

Will fix the ref->term typo and the take your suggestion on = rewording.

There seem to be confusion related to the kernel pack= age name, however I
feel
it was additional information. I shall r= emove the mention of the kernel
package name (keep the variable refere= nce only) for simplicity in next
version.
Looking forward to it!


Yes, you would be able to install "all" the kernel-modules with= out
bothering
about KERNEL_SPLIT_MODULES. The issue is having aut= oload .conf file being
installed or not when KERNEL_MODULE_AUTOLOAD is= having your modules listed
to
be autoloader. When KERNEL_SPLIT_M= ODULES =3D 0 the .conf files for driver
autoload and probeconf is not = getting generated.
This sounds like a bug to me, no? Why would someone expect setting
KER= NEL_SPLIT_MODULES to 0 have the autoload files missing?

I ran a = some tests. So when I set KERNEL_SPLIT_MODULES to 1, and
KERNEL_MODULE= _AUTOLOAD to "xt_limit", a kernel-module-xt-limit.ipk package
is
= generated like so:

=E2=94=9C=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 etc
=E2=94= =82   =E2=94=94=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 modules-load.d
=E2=94=82&n= bsp;  =E2=94=94=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 xt_limit.conf
=E2=94=94=E2=94= =80=E2=94=80 lib
=E2=94=94=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 modules
=E2=94=94=E2= =94=80=E2=94=80 6.12.30-yocto-standard
=E2=94=94=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 ker= nel
=E2=94=94=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 net
=E2=94=94=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 n= etfilter
=E2=94=94=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 xt_limit.ko

When KERNE= L_SPLIT_MODULES is set to 0, only one kernel-modules.ipk package
isgenerated, and does _not_ contain xt_limit.conf, but only xt_limit.ko. T= o
me
this sounds like a bug, what do you think?
Exactly, that's the issue reported https://bu= gzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D15145 ( https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D15145 ) an= d I am fixing it here with this solution https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/218290.<= br />
I would _not_ describe that behavior in the documentation for t= he
KERNEL_SPLIT_MODULES variables.
True, that's why the documentation does not mention anything about the conf= files.

The fact that "kernel-modules" is still available when
KER= NEL_SPLIT_MODULES =3D 1
is simply because a "fake" kernel-modules.ipk = package is generated, and
depends
on the other kernel-module-* pa= ckages - so you can ignore my remark in my
previous message. Which remark exactly??
About the possibility to install "kernel-modules" both when KERNEL_SPLIT_MO= DULES
is 0 or 1. I guess it doesn't hurt to add a note about that at t= he end of the
definition:

"""
.. note::

If = :term:`KERNEL_SPLIT_MODULES` is set to 0, it is still possible to installall kernel modules at once by adding ``kernel-modules`` to
:term:`= IMAGE_INSTALL`. The way it works is that a placeholder
"kernel-modules= " package will be created and will depend on every other
individual ke= rnel module packages.
"""

So there's no confusion. What do = you think?
That sounds good to me. I will append this note. Thanks for suggestion.

Antonin

--
Antonin Godard, Bootlin
= Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
--XmikYUcZi6tE6uE7fxpa--