|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [OSSTEST PATCH v3] support XSM/FLASK via Kconfig
On 1/7/16 4:04 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-01-06 at 13:19 -0600, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>> In antcipation of XSM and FLASK migrating to Kconfig add support for
>
> "anticipation"
>
>> building them via Kconfig or the existing mechanism.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Doug Goldstein <cardoe@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Still untested but visually looks correct.
>
> To me as well. I have a couple of questions though.
>
>> Changes since v3:
>> - Wrap all hunks of code with checks for Kconfig to not dirty the tree
>>
>> Changes since v2:
>> - Support Xen versions prior to Kconfig being integrated
>> ---
>> ts-xen-build | 7 +++++++
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/ts-xen-build b/ts-xen-build
>> index 80b1faa..bc4e41a 100755
>> --- a/ts-xen-build
>> +++ b/ts-xen-build
>> @@ -55,6 +55,10 @@ sub checkout () {
>> echo >>.config KERNELS=''
>> END
>> (nonempty($r{enable_xsm}) ? <<END : '').
>> + if test -f xen/Kconfig; then
>> + echo >>xen/.config CONFIG_XSM='${build_xsm}'
>> + echo >>xen/.config CONFIG_FLASK='${build_xsm}'
>
> These are meaningless in a tree which has Kconfig but not yet the patches
> to make XSM configured that way. However the subsequent olddefconfig will
> just cause them to be dropped from the eventual .config.
>
> Which then answers my second question which is: is this...
>
>> + fi
>> echo >>.config XSM_ENABLE='${build_xsm}'
>
> ... echo still needed if xen/Kconfig exists? The answer I think is yes
> precisely because of the window of time mention above.
yes due to the difference between Kconfig landing and XSM changing to
take advantage due to
>
> I suppose it will be possible to detect of this echo is needed with "grep
> -q XSM_ENABLE Config.mk", but maybe that can wait for another time.
I thought it was harmless to include it so I didn't bother with the
grep. I can roll a v4 with that if you'd prefer.
>
> Also I conclude that this osstest patch should be a blocker for the xen.git
> change, since if xen.git is patched first our XSM builds will unexpectedly
> be non-Xsm builds.
Yes.
>
>> END
>> (nonempty($r{tree_qemu}) ? <<END : '').
>> @@ -126,6 +130,9 @@ END
>> END
>> #/;
>> buildcmd_stamped_logged(9000, 'build', '',<<END,'');
>> + if test -f xen/Kconfig; then
>> + $make_prefix make -C xen olddefconfig
>> + fi
>> $make_prefix make $makeflags @ARGV
>> END
>>
So I guess my question is do I need to roll a v4 or is this ok (save for
the spelling mistake in the commit msg).
--
Doug Goldstein
Attachment:
signature.asc _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |