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

From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
To: dougtrav@icloud.com
Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>,
	George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>,
	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
	Doug Goldstein <cardoe@cardoe.com>, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>,
	Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com>,
	xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
	Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>,
	Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] build: sync Kconfig with Linux v4.17
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 01:42:43 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5B2CA87302000078001CCDBA@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180621222453.GA29089@MacBook-Air.local>

>>> On 22.06.18 at 00:24, <dougtrav@icloud.com> 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 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
>   tests)

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
>   message

This would be a minimal requirement of mine.

Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel