de-modularising for the win!

[Matt Domsch]

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 06:35:19PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 04:27:50PM -0500, Matt Domsch wrote:
> 
>  > This _is_ Fedora we're talking about, not RHEL, right? :-)
>  > /me has had to replace way too many kernel modules from RHEL, which
>  > can't be done if it's built-in.
> 
> The thing is, Dell or any other vendor having to ship their
> own module is to me a sign of a failing in the RHEL process that we
> can't get fastpath pre-next-U release packages out fast enough.
> THAT should be fixed rather than holding back Fedora
> (or even RHEL, as it would be a shame that it couldn't take
>  advantage of these wins)

(brief digression of Fedora is not RHEL, yes, we know, that's a good thing...)

It's less a problem of fasttrack, it's more like the z-stream stuff.
Where we've had to replace modules (or hey, subsystems a couple times)
it was to keep the exact same kernel, but overlay specific targeted
"fixes".  Dell doesn't respin the whole factory install image very
often (generally only respin once during the sales life of a given
RHEL version), we replace the specific bits that we absolutely must,
and nothing else, while at the same time ensuring those same fixes are
in the next update kernel.  This way, customers who are sticking to
one specific kernel for whatever reasons can get the fix they need,
while customers pulling the latest updates from Red Hat get those same
fixes.

This said, while I've replaced the MD, USB, and SATA subsystems a few
times, and the SCSI layer, I don't recall having to replace ext*
(knock on wood).

-- 
Matt Domsch
Linux Technology Strategist, Dell Office of the CTO
linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux