Re: [PATCH v2] ref-manual: document KERNEL_SPLIT_MODULES variable

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

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3589 bytes --]

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.yoctoproject.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
>>> lists.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 package name, however I
>>>> feel
>>>> it was additional information. I shall remove the mention of the kernel
>>>> package name (keep the variable reference only) for simplicity in next
>>>> version.
>>> 
>>> Looking forward to it!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Yes, you would be able to install "all" the kernel-modules without
>>>> bothering
>>>> about KERNEL_SPLIT_MODULES. The issue is having autoload .conf file being
>>>> installed or not when KERNEL_MODULE_AUTOLOAD is having your modules listed
>>>> 
>>>> to
>>>> be autoloader. When KERNEL_SPLIT_MODULES = 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
>>> KERNEL_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:
>>> 
>>> ├── etc
>>> │   └── modules-load.d
>>> │   └── xt_limit.conf
>>> └── lib
>>> └── modules
>>> └── 6.12.30-yocto-standard
>>> └── kernel
>>> └── net
>>> └── netfilter
>>> └── xt_limit.ko
>>> 
>>> When KERNEL_SPLIT_MODULES is set to 0, only one kernel-modules.ipk package
>>> 
>>> 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?
>> 
>> Exactly, that's the issue reported https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15145
>> ( https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15145 ) and I am fixing
>> it here with this solution https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/218290
>> .
>> 
>> 
>>> I would _not_ describe that behavior in the documentation for the
>>> 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
>>> KERNEL_SPLIT_MODULES = 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.
>> 
>> Which remark exactly??
> 
> 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:
> 
> """
> .. note::
> 
> 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.
> """
> 
> 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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4114 bytes --]