[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070607090632.cfcf02e6.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 09:06:32 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Cc: Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.22-rc4-mm1
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 08:59:53 -0700 Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 08:52:00AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 08:43:42 -0700 Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de> wrote:
> >
> > > > Fixed in mkinitrd-6.0.9-6 , which I'll build now and push to
> > > > updates-testing. Thanks for getting my attention here.
> > >
> > > Great, Andrew, can you please reenable the block-device patch that is in
> > > my tree now that the problem has been solved?
> >
> > I think we're screwed, aren't we? Everyone needs to upgrade mkinitrd to be
> > able to boot the kernel? Not viable :(
> >
> > For example, what about my two-year-old yellowdog machine?
>
> Enable CONFIG_SYSFS_DEPRECATED and it should all work just fine. That's
> what Michal said worked for him.
>
Actually, it _was_ enabled.
Ho hum, I'll have a poke at it this evening.
So... what's the story here? Should our position be that
CONFIG_SYSFS_DEPRECATED=n should only be used by distro kernel-builders,
who are concurrently shipping userspace which can handle it? And that
these distros should (probably) set CONFIG_SYSFS_DEPRECATED=y in their
update kernels for older distributions?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists