Re: [PATCH] x86emul: fix test harness and fuzzer build dependencies

From: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@citrix.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>,
	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>,
	xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
	Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86emul: fix test harness and fuzzer build dependencies
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 16:59:56 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <23612.49164.747065.432987@mariner.uk.xensource.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5C3CAE6F020000780020D663@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com>

Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86emul: fix test harness and fuzzer build dependencies"):
> So how do we make progress here? For the two changes that
> you dislike I don't formally need your ack, and I have Andrew's.
> I would (have to) respect an active NAK of yours, of course.

As I say, I think you are trying to something that is not well
supported by recursive make.  It follows that if any situations cause
particular trouble, they should be documented rather than fixed; or
maybe the general case should be documented too.  ("Only top-level
make targets are fully supported; you may use deeper targets directly
with make -C or by invoking make in a subdir, but at risk of
erroneously not (re)building other parts of the tree".)

But I don't think this is important enough for a NAK.

I'm not sure what you mean by "make progress".  Do you mean "how can
we dispose of this disagreement?"  I think our views are
irreconcilable.

If you and other committers have listened to me and still want to
commit this then so be it.

> For the one change that I need your (or Wei's) ack on, I didn't
> see any strong objection so far, and this fixes an actual issue
> with the overall tools build, i.e. _outside_ of the area you're
> concerned about. The $(MAKE) invocation there is not overly
> nice, but I thought I did convince you that - with the way
> tools/include/ gets dealt with from the top level - this should
> not be an issue. Plus I'm just moving it.

FAOD, the only thing I am objecting to is this kind of thing:

   +ifeq ($(MAKELEVEL),0)
   +$(XEN_ROOT)/tools/include/xen/lib/x86/cpuid-autogen.h: FORCE
   +       $(MAKE) -C $(XEN_ROOT)/tools/include build
   +endif

This appears twice in your v2.  The rest I have no difficulty with.

I don't think it is sensible to turn this into an argument about whose
bailiwick various hunks are in.  I am not going to cry foul if this
gets committed, particularly if Andrew has reviewed this conversation
and tells us that his ack stands.  I have said my piece.

HTH.

Ian.

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