Re: [PATCH] kernel-module-split: fix conf file generation when KERNEL_SPLIT_MODULES=0

["Dixit Parmar" <dixitparmar19@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3264 bytes --]

On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 07:54 PM, Trevor Woerner wrote:

> 
> On Sun 2025-03-16 @ 01:16:47 AM, Dixit Parmar via lists.openembedded.org
> wrote:
> 
>> Can you show the conf files for the same kernel configuration
>> with and without the kernel_split_modules enabled ? That way
>> we know there's no change in existing behaviour.
>> 
>>> I have confirmed that in my testing. Can you suggest how I can
>> 
>> share that information here?
> 
> What data are you expecting to find, and where are you expecting to find
> it, that prompted this fix? I assume that in one case there will be
> information/files populated in the image's /etc/modprobe.d and in the
> other
> case (the buggy case) that isn't happening? Or is there something else?
> 
> Can you provide complete instructions and/or your configuration
> demonstrating
> the problem occurring before your fix, and the problem being solved by
> your
> fix? Simply enabling KERNEL_SPLIT_MODULES by itself won't show anything
> unless
> the user is trying to enable some module(s) too.
> 
> I found that I had to go read the bugzilla report to better understand the
> 
> issue and potentially how to show it occurring. Keep the reference to the
> bugzilla, but ideally the commit message would have all the necessary
> information to understand and reproduce the issue.

Yeah. I shall add the issue reproduction configuration, and overview of the fix in the next patchset v2. Do you see any other code changes that are required? so I can take it in the next set of changes.

> 
> 
>> We also should make a test for this in the OE selftests. We
>> are adding conditional code paths, so they should be tested
>> to ensure no regressions in either in the future.
>> 
>>> Never done that before. May be I can do it given some direction
>> 
>> as separate patch.
>> I'm curious about the above line. It is unclear to me why we'd
>> only have this postinst be relevant if none was previously set.
>> 
>>> Reverted.
>> 
>> Is there really a scenario where the directory won't exist ? Isn't
>> this just running in our own install phase ? So all prerequisites
>> and directories should be in place.
>> 
>>> Ideally no, we kept it for safer side, I have added log warning.
>> 
>> The walking and sorting seems quite heavy.  Isn't this called from
>> do_split_packages indirectly ?
>> Do we really need to walk and gather the information ? Is this mainly for
>> the case of no-split
>> on the kernel modules ? If that is the case, isn't there a way to short
>> circuit the processing
>> on the split-package case ?
>> 
>>> Litterally I could not think of anything else here and not sure of there
>> 
>> are any short-circuit options. I have limited knowledge in this. I am open
>> to suggestions
>> if this is not the best solution at the moment.
> 
> It is customary that quoted text have the start-of-line ">" symbols (the
> more
> symbols, the further back in history the comment) and that replies not
> have
> any start-of-line character, as I'm doing here. Your email program should
> have
> an option to do this automatically.

As you might have rightly assumed, I am a newbie so figuring out this stuff, I hope you understand.

~Dixit

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3508 bytes --]