[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] build: sync Kconfig with Linux v4.17

>>> On 21.06.18 at 10:44, <dougtrav@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> On Jun 21, 2018, at 4:37 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On 21.06.18 at 10:28, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 21/06/18 16:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 21.06.18 at 04:10, <dougtrav@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> From: Doug Goldstein <cardoe@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> From: Doug Goldstein <cardoe@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Import the following files and directories from the Linux v4.17 tag
>>>>> (commit id 29dcea88779c856c7dc92040a0c01233263101d4):
>>>>> - scripts/kconfig/ -> xen/tools/kconfig/
>>>>> - scripts/Makefile.host -> xen/tools/kconfig/Makefile.host
>>>>> - Documentation/kbuild/kconfig{,-language}.txt ->
>>>>>  docs/misc/kconfig{-language}.txt
>>>>> - include/linux/kconfig.h -> xen/include/xen/kconfig.h
>>>>> Pulled in parts of scripts/Makefile.lib into
>>>>> xen/tools/kconfig/Makefile.kconfig
>>>>> Side effect of this change is that flex and bison are required to build
>>>>> Kconfig. Linux has switched from shipping the pre-generated files to
>>>>> always generating them with flex and bison.
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Doug Goldstein <cardoe@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> What I'm missing (and what I think is a requirement for this to go in) is
>>>> the "why" part: What do we gain from doing the update? Besides that
>>>> I think that in general it would be better to pull in Linux commits one
>>>> by one, rather than combining everything into a giant patch. That
>>>> might even already address part of my question, as it could highlight
>>>> bug fixes and/or enhancements which are of interest to us.
>>> As a first pass, "because multiple people specifically asked about when
>>> we were going to update the version of Kconfig".
>> Okay, I must have missed every one of these. And hence I'm unaware
>> of the "why" parts of these requests.
> It was asked during multiple sessions at the Xen Developer Summit in Nanjing 
> by audience members.

Meaning I can't possibly know. Even more of a reason to supply this
information when submitting the patch.

>>> Working patch by patch isn't feasible because of the renames.
>> I don't understand - how does path/file naming conflict with working
>> patch by patch? Surely a relatively simple sed command could be used
>> to change the paths in each patch according to our tree layout. That's
>> basically what I'm doing with the MWAIT idle driver; granted, that's just
>> a single file.
> Its 106 commits between the last time I got this in sync. We also don’t have 
> kbuild and we have a little shim file to map things to our build system so 
> for each patch I would have to implement some of those regressions.

Well, I still don't understand: You had to make those 106 commits apply
to your tree as well in order to have create the patch you've submitted.
Whatever you did (even if you created a giant patch first and massaged
that one), the same could have been done for the individual commits. If
this indeed takes more than a simple sed invocation, perhaps it would be
worth adding a little script to our repo doing just that?


Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.