[Pkg-uml-pkgs] Bug#663437: user-mode-linux: support kernel 3.2

[Ritesh Raj Sarraf]

Hello Mattia,


On Thursday 15 March 2012 03:22 AM, Mattia Dongili wrote:
>> I guess it is the same old 'make arch=um' and setting the config. (I
>> haven't fiddled with the config in a long time)
> 
> there are targets in the debian/rules that should help you with that.
>

Thanks. That helps a lot.

> My policy so far has always been to enable everything as module and when
> in doubt checking the linux-image package configuration should give you
> an idea about what to do.
> If you like, start committing preliminary configurations I can try to
> find the time to also give it spin here this weekend.
> 

My view is the same. So I looked at most of the config options and
enabled what I saw fit. Major changes I can recollect is:

* Enable and use CFQ as the default scheduler.
* Enable SELinux and AppArmor
* Enable many networking drivers
* Enable many SCSI subsystems. (Many of the things in the scsi subsystem
can be used in complete software. iSCSI today. LIO soon. Maybe FCoE someday)

Attached is the commit patch. I've built and booted into the new image
with it. For this first time, I would like your of the features I've
enabled. Upon your review, I will work on it further and prepare release
and upload. Please let me know.


For the i386 config:
The machine I use is an amd64 arch box. If I have to do the same changes
for the i386 arch, what do you suggest? Can I do it on the same box or
should I do it inside an i386 guest vm?


>> Sure. On that note, I would like to know your view on these bug reports:
>>
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=521713
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=186930
> 
> I think we should provide kernel-headers for u-m-l.
>

Thanks. I had worked on this in the past but unfortunately lost all of
the changes I had done. I will get this one done in one of the later
releases.


>> These are requests for the headers package, which are required if you
>> would like to use a package that also build a kernel module (like
>> iscsitarget, open-iscsi). I haven't tested how that would behave inside uml.
>>
>> Is there a reason why no headers is shipped?
> 
> mostly lack of time in packaging the headers. Actually I have some
> incomplete work stored locally (just debian/control changes) that goes
> in that direction.
>

Please push the changes if you still have them.

> One other thing about u-m-l is that it should probably be part of the
> kernel team's build system. It'd be great to be able to add new targets
> to the kernel's team work and just get a new u-m-l package created using
> their infrastructure. I tried doing that years ago but had not much
> feedback. It's worth trying again and maybe it's worth doing this rather
> than keeping u-m-l as a separate package.
> 

Yes. that will be the next goal after the 3.2 upload and the headers
package done.



-- 
Ritesh Raj Sarraf | http://people.debian.org/~rrs
Debian - The Universal Operating System
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-first-revival-attempt-for-the-uml-kernel.patch
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 35555 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-uml-pkgs/attachments/20120328/efa4bc19/attachment-0001.patch>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 900 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-uml-pkgs/attachments/20120328/efa4bc19/attachment-0001.pgp>