Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #82453 > unrolled thread

ocfs2_dlmfs missing from the cloud kernel

Started byThomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>
First post2024-05-17 12:40 +0200
Last post2024-05-17 18:20 +0200
Articles 4 — 3 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.kernel


Contents

  ocfs2_dlmfs missing from the cloud kernel Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2024-05-17 12:40 +0200
    Re: ocfs2_dlmfs missing from the cloud kernel Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2024-05-17 13:10 +0200
      Re: ocfs2_dlmfs missing from the cloud kernel Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2024-05-17 18:00 +0200
        Re: ocfs2_dlmfs missing from the cloud kernel Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org> - 2024-05-17 18:20 +0200

#82453 — ocfs2_dlmfs missing from the cloud kernel

FromThomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>
Date2024-05-17 12:40 +0200
Subjectocfs2_dlmfs missing from the cloud kernel
Message-ID<IF3ai-dWjE-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Hi,

The module ocfs2_dlmfs may be use to have a filesystem shared with 2 VMs 
(using for example OpenStack Cinder multi-attach). It's there in Ubuntu, 
in the "normal" kernel, but not in the Debian cloud kernel.

Would it be possible to *not* strip-down this module in the cloud kernel 
please ?

In the source package of the kernel, I can read in: 
debian/config/config.cloud:

## file: fs/ocfs2/Kconfig
##
# CONFIG_OCFS2_FS is not set

how do I change this?

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#82454

FromBastian Blank <waldi@debian.org>
Date2024-05-17 13:10 +0200
Message-ID<IF3Dj-dWK9-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#82453
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 12:31:51PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> how do I change this?

You install the non-cloud kernel.

Bastian

-- 
Those who hate and fight must stop themselves -- otherwise it is not stopped.
		-- Spock, "Day of the Dove", stardate unknown

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#82464

FromBastian Blank <waldi@debian.org>
Date2024-05-17 18:00 +0200
Message-ID<IF89Y-dZhm-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#82454
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 12:44:32PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 12:31:51PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > how do I change this?
> You install the non-cloud kernel.

The cloud kernel is limited in scope.  And the decision was that not
everything you can do on platforms is in scope.

So you can open a bug report, but for now I would say it is not in this
scope.  Cloud platforms tend to provide such things and you don't define
them on your own.

Bastian

-- 
It would seem that evil retreats when forcibly confronted.
		-- Yarnek of Excalbia, "The Savage Curtain", stardate 5906.5

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#82465

FromNoah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org>
Date2024-05-17 18:20 +0200
Message-ID<IF8tj-dZDe-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#82464
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 05:34:57PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > how do I change this?
> > You install the non-cloud kernel.
> 
> The cloud kernel is limited in scope.  And the decision was that not
> everything you can do on platforms is in scope.

To clarify the scope a bit, historically the cloud kernels have
specifically targeted Amazon EC2 and Microsoft Azure.  The rationale for
this is that these providers present a consistent and reasonably well
defined device model, meaning we can be sure what drivers and other
kernel features are needed and which we can leave out.  It is not
intended to be usable on every cloud service.

The module in question, ocfs2_dlmfs, is not, to my knowledge, generally
useful in the cloud environments targeted by the cloud kernel.

If we had the resources, it'd be great provide further optimized kernel
builds, e.g. one for EC2 specifically, Azure specifically, GCP, and
maybe some sort of OpenStack/QEMU VM definition.  Unfortunately, we do
not currently have those resources.

So, IMO, a wishlist bug against src:linux asking for another build
configuration would be a reasonable way to record an interest in such a
change.  The kernel team may be able to provide more context on which
specific resources would be needed in order to support this.  Maybe in
the future it'll get implemented.

noah

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.kernel


csiph-web