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

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


On 06/22/2018 08:42 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 22.06.18 at 00:24, <dougtrav@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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?

So I didn't take those 106 commits individually as it was indicated that
would have been NACKed.

Interesting. Were there any reasons indicated why that would be?

I could see few reasons to be grumpy with such a series in my inbox. Sending a series with 106 is just insane, more that probably no-one is going to look at patches one by one (they are imported from Linux).

This is very similar to when a file is imported or update files from Linux (e.g usban, SMMU). We don't backport one by one the commit. Instead we batch in a single commit.

So why does it have to be different here?

I didn't even use git proper, I ultimately checked
out the tag in my linux.git and used cp to copy the files over that I
mentioned in the commit message. Then I removed the files that went away
in Linux. I then attempted to build it and fixed up paths and other
snippets until it all worked. Its a manual process in its very nature.

Originally when I proposed bringing in Kconfig I had used a script
that maintained things in the same paths as Linux and indeed allowed us
to just pull in patches from Linux. I believe the original RFC for
adding Kconfig started with Linux v4.1 or v4.2 and I had used that
script to update the final version to v4.3. This was ultimately not used
because the Xen-specific changes we make (e.g. paths changed, removal of
tests, use of Config.mk) that ultimately this a manual process.

Ultimately are you looking for v2 to be which of the following:
- a series of 106 patches where each one is editted with the necessary
   changes to make it work standalone (e.g. paths fixed, removal of

This is what I personally would prefer. But seeing that you say others
objected to this approach already, I'm not sure what to suggest.

- the current patch with details about the process documented in
   README.source (which is a Xen specific file) and an expanded commit

I am not sure what would the README.source would give you here? Will it give a mapping with Linux commit for copyright reasons?


Julien Grall

Xen-devel mailing list



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