linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: defconfig: Enable zram, xfs and loading compressed FW support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 12:17:36 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>,
 Maxime Ripard <mripard@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Enric Balletbo i Serra <eballetbo@...hat.com>,
 Erico Nunes <nunes.erico@...il.com>, Brian Masney <bmasney@...hat.com>,
 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@...cinc.com>,
 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
 Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
 Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
 Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: defconfig: Enable zram, xfs and loading
 compressed FW support

On 22/02/2024 10:09, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> writes:
> 
>> On 21/02/2024 20:34, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>>>
>>>> Any explanation what ZRAM is necessary for Fedora to boot.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I mentioned already in another email, Fedora is enabling the systemd
>>> zram-generator and not having a /dev/zram0 slows down the boot to the
>>> point of being unusable. One could disable that service but then is yet
>>
>> That one sentence would be enough for me.
>>
> 
> I'll add that then to the commit message when proposing a config fragment.
> 
> [...]

Thanks.

> 
>>>
>>> So that means that for aarch64, some filesystems have more precedence over
>>> others? It's OK to have ext4 or btrfs but no xfs? Honestly it seems quite
>>> arbitrary and subjective for me.
>>
>> Yes, subjective, but to be honest: I would drop Btrfs. I was thinking
> 
> Fair. If the agreegment is to minimize defconfig (which AFAIU is your
> point), then I'm on board with it. We can start splitting in separate
> fragments, people can then mix and match for their specific use cases.
> 
>> about it, but since Arnd agrees on XFS I won't fight that battle.
>>
> 
> Yeah, it was a strange hill for me to die on and is true that fragments
> seems to be the best compromise, as Maxime said before in this thread.
> 
> By the way, I want to apologize for my harsh/rude comments yesterday. I
> wasn't in the best mood and I got too emotional...

No worries, I did not notice. Everything seemed fine for me.

Best regards,
Krzysztof