Kernel updates

[jamesbond]

Updated kernels are available: http://distro.ibiblio.org/fatdog/kernels/900/
The kernel sources are downloadable using SFS Manager.

6.10.2:
======
Plain vanilla kernel patched with AUFS; configuration is similar to 6.1.90-debtest4 (the current kernel in Fatdog64 902), adapted for 6.10.x line. Have extra drivers for 8812au, 8821cu, 8818eu, and, wl.

6.9.7:
======
Plain vanilla kernel patched with AUFS; configuration is similar to 6.1.90-debtest4 (the current kernel in Fatdog64 902), adapted for 6.9.x line. Have extra drivers for 8812au, 8821cu, 8818eu, and, wl.
UPDATED: The original "no-tmpfs" uploaded earlier has been removed, and replaced with "tmpfs-test". Despite the name, this is the regular kernel compiled with the regular set of aufs patches (with one additional patch that would be released on next Monday).

This kernel has been withdrawn, as I have discovered problems with it when connecting with SMB shares. I will not build further 6.9.x kernels because it is already end-of-life at 6.9.12.

6.1.90:
======
Changes:
- 6.1.90 added SND_SOC_SOF needed for certain intel platforms.
- 6.1.90-debconfig is the same kernel configured using Debian kernel configuration, suitably modified for booting Fatdog.
Both are plain vanilla kernel patched with AUFS; and both have extra drivers for 8812au, 8821cu, 8818eu, and of course, wl.

The debconfig kernel was built based on this discussion here (but not following the exact same process, for example, I used vanilla kernel instead of Debian-patched one).

[Neo_78]

Thanks @jamesbond!

Could you explain the exact difference between vmlinuz-6.1.90 and vmlinuz-6.1.90-debconfig? Why would one use one kernel version over the other?

Will there be a new Fatdog iso image that incorporates the new kernel?

[jamesbond]

Could you explain the exact difference between vmlinuz-6.1.90 and vmlinuz-6.1.90-debconfig?

The 6.1.90 kernel is configured using Fatdog's kernel configuration, the same configuration that has been used in earlier Fatdog kernels and releases (the addition being the enablement of the SND_SOC_SOF drivers).

The 6.1.90-debconfig, as its name says, is configured using Debian kernel's configuration, as the link the first post explains. But as a kernel using pure Debian configuration won't boot Fatdog, so it is minimally modified (e.g. inclusion of aufs, storage drivers, keyboard drivers etc as a built-in instead of modules) to make it work.

Why would one use one kernel version over the other?

Different kernel configuration leads to different performance and compatibility trade-off. Perhaps one kernel is more compatible for your machine, than the other. The only way to know is to test it. Hence, we make it available for people who are interested.

Will there be a new Fatdog iso image that incorporates the new kernel?

Yes, when we make a new release.
But no, not for this particular 6.1.90 kernel release (not a public one anyway).

[Neo_78]

Thanks for the explanation @jamesbond. I never had any problems with hardware support in FatDog in the past, so I guess I will use the standard 6.1.90 kernel, which also seems to be smaller.

I actually have never attempted to remaster a FatDog ISO booted into RAM-only mode with a different kernel version and create a new live boot medium with it.

Can I simply use this guide?

https://distro.ibiblio.org/fatdog/web/faqs/kernel.html

"Preferred method - Replace the original kernel-modules.sfs in the initrd with the one you downloaded:

1) Click on your initrd file. After a while the initrd will be extracted into a working folder and a new ROX window will open.
2) Replace the kernel-modules.sfs with the one you downloaded. Make sure it's named "kernel-modules.sfs".
3) Click on repack-initrd and the initrd will be updated.
4) Replace the original vmlinuz with the one you downloaded."

Thanks for your feedback!

[jamesbond]

Can I simply use this guide?

https://distro.ibiblio.org/fatdog/web/faqs/kernel.html

"Preferred method - Replace the original kernel-modules.sfs in the initrd with the one you downloaded:

This works, but it assumes that your initrd is located in read-write media (e.g. in your harddisk, flash drive, etc). If you're booting off from from read-only media such as ISO image or DVD, then it won't work because you can't modify the initrd.

If you just want to try but not commit yourself to the new kernel, the way to do it is here: https://distro.ibiblio.org/fatdog/web/f ... ernel.html

[Neo_78]

So if I understand you correctly, it is technically not possible to boot from the default FatDog-DVD into RAM and create a new remastered ISO that will include the new kernel version?

[jamesbond]

Of course you can, if that's what you want.

During the remaster process, the remaster will stop twice.
The first stop is to allow you to edit the contents of the filesystem that is going to be remastered.
The second stop is to allow you to edit the contents of the boot menu.

Pay attention at this second stop. At this stop, a ROX window will open that will allow you to access the new initrd. Open that initrd, replace the kernel-modules.sfs in it with the new kernel's kernel-modules.sfs, and then re-pack.

The continue the remaster process as usual.

[Neo_78]

Great, so at this second stop of the remastering process that you mentioned I can then simply follow this guide ("preferred method"), correct?

https://distro.ibiblio.org/fatdog/web/faqs/kernel.html

If I download the new vmlinuz and kernel-modules files to the /tmp directory, the actual downloaded files won't be included in the remastered iso, right? The /tmp folder is not included in the remastered iso? Just to keep the size of the new iso as small as possible...

[jamesbond]

Great, so at this second stop of the remastering process that you mentioned I can then simply follow this guide ("preferred method"), correct?

https://distro.ibiblio.org/fatdog/web/faqs/kernel.html

Correct

The /tmp folder is not included in the remastered iso?

Correct, /tmp is a scratch RAM location so it never goes into the remaster.

[Clarity]

Hello @jamesbond
Is there a modern test FD ISO or 2 that might address this FD ISO file boot problem on a Laptop?

[Neo_78]

Just a last question:

Are there checksum files for the kernel files and modules?

I cannot find them in the kernel folder:

https://distro.ibiblio.org/fatdog/kernels/900/

Thanks!

[jamesbond]

Are there checksum files for the kernel files and modules?

There weren't before, but I've just added them.

Hello @jamesbond
Is there a modern test FD ISO or 2 that might address this FD ISO file boot problem on a Laptop?

It's being addressed as we speak. Fatdog itself is fine, it's just that the grub2 bootloader is having a hickup on that particular machine.

[Neo_78]

Thanks @jamesbond

I justed noted in the kernel folder that there is also a range of different microcode-update cpio files.

The microcode can be downloaded during the remastering process when you create a new iso. If I change the kernel version during the remastering process, do I also have to change the microcode file and how would I do that?

Thanks for your feedback!

[jamesbond]

They're both independent of each other. The remaster script always pull the latest microcode.

[Neo_78]

Thanks @jamesbond! I was able to create an iso with the new kernel, which booted succesfully and runs stable without any issues so far. Great job!

[jamesbond]

Linux 6.9.7 is now available.

[Neo_78]

That's great news @jamesbond. Thanks a lot for your effort!

If you don't mind, could you please explain what the tmpfs-idr.patch is? I was not able to find a meaningful explanation in Google...

If you use kernel version 6.9.7 for FatDog, would that missing patch have any practical implications?

Thanks for your feedback!

[jamesbond]

If you don't mind, could you please explain what the tmpfs-idr.patch is? I was not able to find a meaningful explanation in Google...

Nevermind that. The bug has been fixed, and I have removed that version and replaced that with a version that has the complete set of aufs patches applied. The name is "tmpfs-test" but it is actually the normal kernel; I'm just too lazy to re-compile the kernel to change the name.

[Neo_78]

Thanks @jamesbond. Will try to test it asap.

[Neo_78]

Hey @jamesbond, you mentioned that you wanted to update kernel 6.9.7 with one additional patch. Do you have an update in this regard? Thank you!

[jamesbond]

Hey @jamesbond, you mentioned that you wanted to update kernel 6.9.7 with one additional patch. Do you have an update in this regard? Thank you!

I already did.

The post right above you says

Nevermind that. The bug has been fixed, and I have removed that version and replaced that with a version that has the complete set of aufs patches applied. The name is "tmpfs-test" but it is actually the normal kernel; I'm just too lazy to re-compile the kernel to change the name.

And the first post says:

UPDATED: The original "no-tmpfs" uploaded earlier has been removed, and replaced with "tmpfs-test". Despite the name, this is the regular kernel compiled with the regular set of aufs patches (with one additional patch that would be released on next Monday).

[Neo_78]

I got confused by this part: "(with one additional patch that would be released on next Monday)". Thanks @jamesbond

[jamesbond]

That's okay. I could have been more clear with that (that line wasn't necessary to write at all, it was more of an internal note for myself).

[jamesbond]

6.9.7 has been withdrawn due to problems with SMB connections.
As a replacement, I have built 6.10.2. See first first post.