[PATCH 0/2] linux-image-extra support

Tim Gardner tim.gardner at canonical.com
Fri Sep 16 14:25:52 UTC 2011

On 09/16/2011 08:11 AM, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 08:01:45AM -0600, Tim Gardner wrote:
>> On 09/16/2011 07:45 AM, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>>> During UDS we discussed the current slim version of the -virtual kernel
>>> and how for some uses we desire a very slim kernel and for others we
>>> desire a near complete install.  We also noted that we have a constant
>>> drip, drip, drop of new requests for packages to be added back into the
>>> -virtual kernel.  These are both time consuming, risky, and costly to SRU.
>>> The suggested solution at UDS was to drop all of the remaining modules
>>> excluded from the current linux-image-virtual into a new package which
>>> could then be installed when missing packages were needed.
>>> Following this email are two patches.  The first refactors the
>>> module-inclusion logic so that it may be applied repeatedly and that
>>> any left overs are retained.  The second uses these new features to then
>>> package up the remainder as linux-image-extras-virtual.
>>> This will both ameliorate the issues described above and would also provide
>>> a solution for another work item related to improving the include exclude
>>> list which was slated to simplify adding packages requested via the drips.
>>> In my testing the only difference between the previous linux-image-virtual
>>> and the new is that the empty directories are elided.  I do not expect
>>> this to be an issue but would be easy to correct if needed.
>>> Proposing for Oneiric.
>>> -apw
>>> Andy Whitcroft (2):
>>>    UBUNTU: make module-inclusion selection retain the left overs
>>>    UBUNTU: add a new linux-image-extras package for virtual
>>>   debian.master/control.d/flavour-control.stub |   21 ++++++++++++++
>>>   debian/rules.d/0-common-vars.mk              |    1 +
>>>   debian/rules.d/2-binary-arch.mk              |   22 ++++++++++++++-
>>>   debian/scripts/module-inclusion              |   37 ++++++++++++++++----------
>>>   4 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>> My understanding of the use case for the -virtual flavour is that it
>> is supposed to be small and quick to load. Only persistent instances
>> would require the modules in your proposed extras package. In that
>> case why wouldn't the user install the -server flavour to begin with
> The perception is that the -virtual instance is better suited to and
> configured appropriatly for a virtual setting.  For example -virtual has
> cirtain boot essential xen drivers built in which the -server does not.
> It is also generally configured in a more light-weight form, fewer CPU
> and the like.  So people tend to want the -virtual but with "just a few
> more modules".
> -apw

Hmm, I'd forgotten about the Xen drivers. Well, if we're gonna go the 
route of having an extras package, then why don't we make -virtual 
_really_ lean and fast and move all but the boot essential bits into the 
extras package ? Perhaps thats something we can explore for 12.04. At 
any rate,

Acked-by: Tim Gardner <tim.gardner at canonical.com>

Tim Gardner tim.gardner at canonical.com

More information about the kernel-team mailing list