Re: different configs for 386 and 686 kernel
Marcel Kolaja <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 04:51:09PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> Marcel Kolaja <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> I am trying to finetune kernel to fit more my needs. Studying the config
>>> files for Debian kernels I found out, the 386 kernel has CONFIG_EXT2_FS=y
>>> but the 686 kernel has CONFIG_EXT2_FS=m. This is intention or mistake? Why
>>> do we want to have the ext2fs support compiled directly in the kernel and
>>> not as a module in the 386 subarchitecture?
>>> (I am talking about the 2.4.20-3 kernel image packages.)
>> Seems to be a bug in 386, because it might make it impossible to mount
>> / as ext3 if ext3 is built as module and ext2 is not.
> This is exactly, what I was thinking about it. If I have / ext3, it will
> be mounted as ext2 with the 386 kernel. Am I right? So shall I file the
> bug report against kernel-image-2.4.20?
If you can reproduce the problem and the bug hasn't been filed already
(perhaps against kernel-image-2.4.x-386 with x in 10-18. I think I can
remember hearing about this bug on debian-devel some months ago), yes.
How about asking Herbert Xu himself?
cu andreas (no DD)