This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] mkpatches: against ref-linux or pristine? (Was: Error co

To: "Michael Paesold" <mpaesold@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] mkpatches: against ref-linux or pristine? (Was: Error compiling with CONFIG_PROFILING (xenoprof))
From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:24:31 +0100
Cc: Xen Devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 06:24:15 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <015a01c65c9f$15ca4210$d801a8c0@zaphod>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <00a701c65c83$8cb26310$d801a8c0@zaphod><65e385dda31af24104770ee1e2244232@xxxxxxxxxxxx><00e701c65c91$e69a8f20$d801a8c0@zaphod> <7c24dec9d3c0a25c92442001bd623b45@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <015a01c65c9f$15ca4210$d801a8c0@zaphod>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On 10 Apr 2006, at 14:02, Michael Paesold wrote:

You are right, I also see no real value in having one xen patch + several extra patches to apply. It rather makes the process of patching more complicated. Although rpm helps me with the patching, I still have to manually review changes in patches/ everytime I rebase our own RPMs... resulting in this very thread. :-)

Does anyone see a use-case for not creating an all-in-one patch? On a second thought, a separate "make mkpatch" (or a more explicit target name) could provide an all-in-one patch without introducing transitioning problems for users of mkpatches.

Should I create a patch to implement that? (Seems rather trivial and suitable for my limited Makefile fu.)

Actually I just fixed it already. :-) I think there will be no complaints and, if that's the case, we can also backport to 3.0.2 series.

 -- Keir

Xen-devel mailing list